You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I did find the other thread but it was closed 🤷♂️
Anyway, here's a video covering the report, seems the door had been missing some bolts the entire time. There's even photos (by boeing!) of them doing stuff near the door, and in the photos you can see the bolts are missing 😬. Seems to be a total shitshow over there
Squeaky bum time for people that don't like flying and then see which plane they are on for their hols.
It's all a bit crap isn't it?
Looks like an open and shut case. I'm glad it doesn't hinge on Boeing's evidence alone. That company sure does have its knockers.
https://airlinegeeks.com/2024/02/05/more-quality-control-issues-with-737-max/
I want to thank an employee at the supplier who flagged to his manager
It's worrying that it relied on a single employee flagging it up and that Boeing had no incoming QC checks.
Rich_s
Full Member
Looks like an open and shut case. I’m glad it doesn’t hinge on Boeing’s evidence alone. That company sure does have its knockers.
Well played sir!
Nah it's all sorted, I saw on the internet that it was caused by Diversity.
Wow, Britain's Got Talent has more to answer for than I thought.
Concord had one accident and they scrapped the entire thing. I guess plebs are cheaper and more expendable.
Nah it’s all sorted, I saw on the internet that it was caused by Diversity.
And I heard on the internet it was all caused by capitalism.
Lots of designs rely on additional fixings on the assumption that all will not be fitted, will be fitted incorrectly or to insufficient spec. Designing for human error and laziness. Assume this was next level
Imagine bikes if every bolt had 2 or 3 if only one was actually needed
Concord had one accident and they scrapped the entire thing. I guess plebs are cheaper and more expendable.
The issue with Concord is it can only carry 100 passengers and costed a fortune to run, so it was simply economicaly unviable.
737max are a bit of a different marque as they are reletivley cheap to buy & run, hence why there are so many of them for 'short haul' flights.
Nah it’s all sorted, I saw on the internet that it was caused by Diversity.
It is quite the stretch to claim this.
What has been pointed out factually (regardless of the motivation for doing so), is that incentives were changed so that two additional factors were considered (climate and DEI) for a total of 5 for operational performance. Reason being they were critical for their long range business plan, which I guess involves still being able to make and sell planes.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1745158868676546609
Who knows what the consequences of this was across a massive company. Given these were newly added areas, perhaps there was more easy wins here to get your bonus than in the existing areas (product safety, employee safety, and quality). More priorities always dilute focus, and if you have too many then nothing at all is a priority. People rightly do adapt when priorities change from above. And ill-designed incentives do cause unwanted behaviours, especially when it comes to bonuses.
Priorities for example could affect what topics discretionary (i.e. not compliance/legal related) training budget is spent on. It also does factor into recruitment and promotion; quite a few companies don't pick the best people starting from the top for these, rather they'll pick plenty from the pool that are good enough on merit, and then pick on non-merit factors from these to fill the number of roles available. Or where R&D spend is targeted.
So I'd expect these priority and incentive changes to have had an effect, but how specifically and to what extent we don't know, various things are just plausible. I'll lay it at capitalism and incentives always bugger things up.
AFAIK, the rot set in when Boeing joined with McDonnell Douglas, and everything became about performance, shareholders, etc - basically “I’ll lay it at capitalism and incentives always bugger things up.”
AFAIK, the rot set in when Boeing joined with McDonnell Douglas, and everything became about performance, shareholders, etc – basically “I’ll lay it at capitalism and incentives always bugger things up.”
That's pretty much the impression I have, correctly, or incorrectly, I'd feel safer flying on an airbus plane rather than Boeing...
But you don't tend to get a choice of aircraft when booking flights!
bikesandboots
Full MemberIt is quite the stretch to claim this.
It's a simple statement of fact tbh
easy wins here to get your bonus
Say what now?
It’s a simple statement of fact tbh
Indeed...You don't see the equivelent airbus just randomly dropping out of the sky, or doors falling off, etc.
I understand there are different varients of the Boeing 737, but they should all be grounded without exception, IMO.
You don’t see the equivelent airbus just randomly dropping out of the sky, or doors falling off, etc.
You have a very short memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Seville_Airbus_A400M_crash
I understand there are different varients of the Boeing 737, but they should all be grounded without exception, IMO.
The issue with the door plugs was not a design issue. As long as they are correctly fitted, they are perfectly safe. It's the same as the wheels on a car - if you don't fit them properly, they will fall off, but they are perfectly safe if fitted correctly.
The nosediving into the ground was a much more serious problem, but it only affects 373 Max models, AFAIK. That problem is now understood and should be able to be fixed.
The bigger issue is really that Boeing's culture seems to have eroded and they keep making dumb mistakes like this. Fixing corporate culture is much harder than fixing engineering problems. Part of the problem is that Boeing was allowed to self-certify the 737 Max, so that points to an even bigger issue with regulators not doing their jobs.
The bigger issue is really that Boeing’s culture seems to have eroded and they keep making dumb mistakes like this
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I'm not in a position to accuse Boeing of making dangerous planes on the cheap, (heaven forbid!) or the people who buy/lease them for not maintaining them correctly, according to the specific confuguration of model they operate.
But the blame lies somewhere between the two... the plane is either faulty, or the plane is incorrectly maintained, I'm really struggling to see how there could be any other reason, in terms of logic, as to why there there's a really big issue with 737s at the moment.
If you'll forgive me for making a crass analogy... every time you see a person killed by a dog in the news, it's a safe bet it's a pit bull/ xl bully dog, every god damn time.
Same with plane crashes..it's always a 737 of some type.
It is quite the stretch to claim this.
It’s a simple statement of fact tbh
I was referring to what they said, not what you said about what they said.
Indeed…You don’t see the equivelent airbus just randomly dropping out of the sky, or doors falling off, etc.
Are you agreeing it was caused by diversity? I think some of us might not be on the same channel about understanding what each other have written.
easy wins here to get your bonus
Say what now?
Given quality and safety had been the only incentivised priorities for presumably years, all the easy wins had probably already been taken and they were probably pretty good at it. So the new additional priorities probably had more room for improvement and things people could do to meet the bonus criteria.
Given quality and safety had been the only incentivised priorities for presumably years,
So, profit has nothing to do with it?
Are you seriously suggesting that 'quality and safety had been the only incentivised priorities ' ?
Your words.
Are you agreeing it was caused by diversity?
The whole DEI thing is just a right-wing talking point, there's no basis in reality for it. A few weeks back, some MAGA nutter went off about not wanting Black or female pilots. Elon Musk is the last person who should be talking about prioritizing safety - the Tesla autopilot thing is just one example of his utter distain for regulators.
No offence @thols2 but I fear we digress.
Mechanical or technical failure is not a product of politics or opinion, it's mechanical failiure, be that an inherrent design fault, or the result of lack of proper maintenence.
If your car gets a flat tyre, It's an expensive inconvenience... when planes start dropping out of the sky, it's a much bigger problem...
...moreso if you happen to be on said plane at the time.
The door is just another example of how Boeing thinks. Maximum revenue is the push so they outsource as much as possible to become a plane assembler not a manufacturer. They keep a 30 year old flawed design that sits too low for modern engines. They create lots of variants of the flawed design that then handles differently. Create MCAS to remove need for pilots to type rate on new aircraft.
BTW reason for the door plug is again to save money on door fittings and they only have the door so if the airline fit more seats they needs more emergency exits. Probably just the tip of the iceberg on minimising costs wherever possible. There is a reason the 737 is so popular and it’s because it cheap. Just ask Ryanair.
Probably just the tip of the iceberg on minimising costs wherever possible. There is a reason the 737 is so popular and it’s because it cheap. Just ask Ryanair.
It's not Ryanair?...
The common denominator here is Boeing.. it's not a coincidence that 737s in particular are getting a bit of a reputation.
I don't belive in coincedences.
If that's design faults, or lack of proper maintenence by operator is an open question, and a question which needs to be answered.
BTW reason for the door plug is again to save money on door fittings
That's a perfectly sound reason for fitting them. As long as they are correctly fitted, they are perfectly safe. In this case, workers did not fit the bolts that keep the plug in position. As pointed out above, Boeing seem to have suffered badly from the McDonnell Douglas merger. In this case, the fuselage sections are built by a company called Spirit AeroSystems. AIUI, the door plugs are fitted by Spirit then removed at the Boeing assembly plant, then refitted again before the aircraft is delivered. In this case, the door plug was fitted into the fuselage, but the locating bolts were not fitted. That is quite a mind-boggling oversight and I suspect (without direct evidence) that workers may have been pressured to try and speed things up to try and make up for Boeing's woes. Whatever the case, this is because workers did not follow the correct assembly procedures, not because the door plug is an unsafe design.
All the big f-ups I saw when working in the sector were predominantly down to a failure to hand-off jobs between two different organisations, whether it be the customer, safety authority/regulator, manufacturer or the sub-contractor. Lack of clarity between the safety regular and the manufacturer and quietly forgetting about the too difficult/too hard stuff particularly when working to a programme milestone. The diversity thing is a bit of a smokescreen, because it is because of the over-familiarity between organisations and individuals that results in things being missed - I’ve seen it for myself where whistle-blowers or those that challenge the status-quo get rounded-on and it’s only when something really bad happens and there’s a root and branch investigation do these things get identified.
Whatever the case, this is because workers did not follow the correct assembly procedures, not because the door plug is an unsafe design.
The fact that the design relies on someone remembering to fit 4 bolts makes it unsafe in my view. The fact the door ended up in a field would support that. We are talking about safety critical application here which should have redundancy built in. A full fat door has that as it doesn’t rely on a couple of bolts to stop people potentially being killed.
this is because workers did not follow the correct assembly procedures
...and because their work wasn't checked. And because a whole bucket load of systems and controls weren't in place or were ignored.
This isn't about the worker.
The fact that the design relies on someone remembering to fit 4 bolts makes it unsafe in my view.
All vehicles rely on being correctly assembled. It's not possible to make a machine that will operate properly if it's not correctly assembled. Try removing all the bolts from the stem of a bicycle and see how far you can ride. That doesn't make the design unsafe, it just means that you need to assemble it correctly.
This isn’t about the worker.
Exactly, it's about the corporate culture at Boeing. It seems quite possible that assembly line workers were under pressure from management and started taking shortcuts. If that's the case, the blame is with the managers.
It’s an aircraft travelling at 40,000 feet carrying 150+ people at over 450 knots so let’s compare it to a bike.
the diversity nonsense from musk is hilarious
he pushed forward a rocket launch, against his engineers advice, to the 20th April amd it blew up
all because hes that desperate for likes from his incel fanboys
https://futurism.com/the-byte/starship-explosion-420
Given quality and safety had been the only incentivised priorities for presumably years,
So, profit has nothing to do with it?
Are you seriously suggesting that ‘quality and safety had been the only incentivised priorities ‘ ?
Your words.
No. What I said was in context of operational performance priorities, I should have also mentioned the separate financial performance priority. Still, the point stands.
The fact that the design relies on someone remembering to fit 4 bolts makes it unsafe in my view
No. The processes and procedures were inadequate. Airbus use door plugs too. Customers get to choose their configuration to some extent so when the higher number of seats are fitted, or where airframes are extended additional doors are required to allow evacuation in the prescribed times. Doors are frggin complicated and as a result expensive. The bolts on this design were there to stop the plug lifting off it's fixings. Workers at Boeing are expected to sign off their own work despite their union's objections.
It's the logical conclusion of the overall approach to H&S on the US IMV.
Not the same plane type but boeing not having their best PR times lately
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/boeing-plane-emergency-landing-miami-florida
bikesandboots
Full MemberI was referring to what they said, not what you said about what they said.
Thanks for that, it didn't read that way to me but I am happy to be corrected!
tonyf1
Free MemberThe fact that the design relies on someone remembering to fit 4 bolts makes it unsafe in my view.
Me rebuilding my car depends on me remembering to fit bolts in the right place. Building a plane doesn't depend on anyone remembering anything, you have checklists/flowcharts, you have doublechecks, you have stock control (ie, someone says "hey why are there door bolts left over?") A lot has to go wrong before anything like this happens, whether it be a lot going wrong on the line, or a lot going wrong in the process design, or a lot going wrong in the decision making further up, or (probably) some combination thereof
It’s an aircraft travelling at 40,000 feet carrying 150+ people at over 450 knots so let’s compare it to a bike.
Is it on a treadmill? 🤔
you have stock control (ie, someone says “hey why are there door bolts left over?”
It’s worse than that. These fixings will be lot traceable. So someone has said that specific fixings from a specific lot id (or more than one, doesn’t matter) are in place on that aircraft.
If Spirit are doing that work then Boeing are removing and replacing the same fixings then the process is shite. If Spirit are fitting tooling only fixings, which are then removed and replaced with lot traceable ones, then the Boeing processes/controls must still also be shite to allow it to happen without being noticed (even if not immediately)
The fact that the design relies on someone remembering to fit 4 bolts makes it unsafe in my view.
it might surprise you to learn that the engines are held on with less bolts, as are many of the control surfaces. Bolts are fine when fitted correctly.
According to this, a whistleblower said that Boeing removed the door plug for repairs, but the bolts weren't refitted. Boeing had been aggressively trying to cut costs and safety inspections suffered. The problem is much deeper than just an assembly line worker forgetting to fit some bolts, it's a deeper problem with corporate culture.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-broke-down-inside-series-110000958.html
The rub is that Boeing’s quality shortcomings—and heavy dependence on a far-flung network of suppliers—are recurring and deep-seated. The problem isn’t merely that one worker on one assembly line failed to install a door screw. It was that managerial decisions, made over a period that spanned more than 20 years and four CEOs, gradually weakened a once vaunted system of quality control and troubleshooting on the factory floor, leaving gaps that have allowed sundry defects to slip through. Many weren’t related to airline safety but caused long delays; others had major and tragic consequences. “The seeds of these quality problems were planted a long time ago. These problems were hidden for years, then they exploded,” says a former top executive at a Boeing supplier.
Yep, even Ryanair have mentioned Boeing quality:
"He said that the airline had discovered “silly, small things” during inspections of recent aircraft deliveries. He said they would lift floorboards and find a rag or a spanner under them. “It’s indicative of a poor approach to quality control on the line in Wichita or Seattle and Boeing need to fix it.”
Pot/kettle..
Ryanair are many things, and I hate them with a passion, but they are pretty hot on their maintenance.
Not sure how they compare with other budget carriers but they work their planes hard. Most seem to be flown from 6am til about 11pm or so; 2hr flight, super quick turnaround, back up again. I've just come back from Prague with Ryanair and the aircraft that flew us (which was only a month old) had already done London - Katowice - London that morning, then London - Prague - London and then it was scheduled for London - Rome - London straight after that.
Not sure if there would have been time to do another short-haul running into the night.
Bare in mind airports charge the operator a LOT for every min a plane is on the tarmac.. so usually its a quick clean through the cabin, bit of fuel and off they go again.
It also make a lot of sense for planes to do a 'round robin' so, I dunno for example, london - malaga - Ibiza - back to london, or whatever.
I imagine it's very much like HGV lorries, they barely touch the ground unless it's scheduled maintenence or if there's a problem, or the crew runs out of working hours.
I did a fair bit of work in logistics back in my younger years, and the site manager where I worked often said that the companies losing a lot of money when lorries (or tractor units more specifically) are sat in the yard, mostly they pull in, drop a trailer, refuel, grab a new pre-loaded trailer, new driver and off they go again within 30mins if things are working properly.
Margins are so tight they can't be competetive on price if the vehicle fleet is parked up for too long.
All comes back to money I guess..
there’s a bucket of (unused) fixings somewhere that nobody flagged as an issue
Just to give an example, a part i used to own on a *car* used 6 bolts (out of about 10 of that type used on the whole car) but another bolt (same thread, different flange) will fit, they use about 40 of those on two or three consecutive stations. Someone had been using the wrong bolt because "it looked better".
It was flagged after less than 200 cars due to a restocking issue.
Caused a minor recall, got two guys sacked and one on a final written warning. (The sacking was for trying to override the restock issue, several times.)
That was only a heat shield.
I read this earlier today, it’s very telling about the situation Boeing has got itself into, and just how dangerous it is.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/26/former-boeing-employee-speaks-out-00142948
That's really scarey... I'd trust an old school engineer over a cooperate media sound bite any day of the week!
When booking a short haul flight as a pleb though, how does one know what plane it it will be? is it even possible? I'd sooner pay more if it meant avoiding the MAX line...
One of the Apollo moon landing astronauts (Alan Shepherd?) famously answered a question with " I'm on a rocket built by the lowest quote
@mert I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t JLR. 😉
Ouch... It was actually. But nearly 20 years ago now.
When booking a short haul flight as a pleb though, how does one know what plane it it will be? is it even possible? I’d sooner pay more if it meant avoiding the MAX line…
Skyscanner will show you what you’re likely flying in. These things are rare in Europe currently. Only Ryanair in the UK I believe and not this variant but there’s plenty other reasons not to go on Ryanair.
The version with the dodgy door plugs is i believe US specific.
The door plugs weren't dodgy, they just weren't fitted correctly (the locating bolts weren't fitted). The door plugs are there to close off an extra door that is needed in some seating configurations so they are fitted on Max 9 and 737-900 aircraft with a specific seating configuration. It's specific to the seating configuration, not specific to the U.S.
The problem was that the pilots weren’t aware of the issue/drill required
Speaking as someone working in aerospace, I'm quite hard over on the idea that the problem was actually that Boeing catastrophically cocked up the MCAS system right from the start, and nothing at all to do with the pilots.
Although you might argue that trying to stuff on two really oversized engines in double quick time, in order to get something to market before Airbus got there first, was the root cause.
Maybe I'm thinking about the wrong 737 MAX problem though, maybe the drill you're thinking of is some kind of corrective action to take when a large hole surprisingly appears in the fuselage?
The problem was that the pilots weren’t aware of the issue/drill required
AIUI, Boeing tried to cheap out on modernizing the 737. They wanted the Max versions to not require recertification of pilots so they tried to use software to prevent pilots from exceeding the safe flight envelope of the newer versions, whereas the older versions didn't require that. That, apparently, was controlled by a single angle of attack sensor, so when that malfunctioned, the aircraft would nose down to prevent what it believed was excessive nose up. In order to prevent the aircraft crashing, the pilots would have to identify the problem and disable the system. That's a hell of a lot to ask of pilots if it isn't part of their training, which it wouldn't be if pilots trained on the older versions were certified to fly the Max.
I'm not certain of the all the technical details, that's just what I remember from reading about the investigation, but building an aircraft that flies itself into the ground if a single sensor fails and then blaming pilots for not knowing how to stop the aircraft from auto-crashing isn't what a responsible company does.
From a pilots view, the MAX is fine now.
Maybe from a pilot's point of view but not from this particular passenger's.
I wouldn't like to be on a flight where the pilots discovered a new 'issue' with the MAX.
Not clear to me how the cultural issues described at Boeing are only impacting these later 737 derivatives, or were they not designing and building other stuff in the last 5 years? Although I get that the two crashes were down to trying to upgrade an old design within operating cost imposed parameters.
Building a plane doesn’t depend on anyone remembering anything, you have checklists/flowcharts, you have doublechecks
Quite, and as I understand it, part of the issue here was that the door plug was treated as having been "opened" and not "removed". Had it been recorded as having been removed, it would have triggered an inspection process to confirm that it had been re-fitted correctly. The problem is that there is no difference between "opening" and "removing" the door plug: either way, the bolts have to be removed.
In any event, chucking more bolts at it isn't going to fix anything. There were already four times as many as needed.
Not clear to me how the cultural issues described at Boeing are only impacting these later 737 derivatives, or were they not designing and building other stuff in the last 5 years? Although I get that the two crashes were down to trying to upgrade an old design within operating cost imposed parameters.
Well, indeed... issues may have manifested with certain variants of 737, and they all look to be QC/procedural/documentation failings at manufacture level rather than airlines or pilots/crew/maintenence teams not doing the job properly post-sale.
So the only logical question to ask now, is...where else is the manufacturer cutting corners? It seems to be a systemic lack of oversight and following of proceedure in order to keep costs down, so common sense would dictate there may well be more issues with other types of aircraft that have yet to manifest themselves in the form of new and unpredictable catastrophic failiures.
It's not exacly confidence inspiring.
where else is the manufacturer cutting corners?
As corporate culture shifted at this point, perhaps all things undertaken since the MD merge reverse-takeover, have gradually become infected by a cost-cutting-profit-prioritising kind of approach.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11893274/
I’m not certain of the all the technical details
MCAS worked by activating the trim for a period of time (IIRC 10 seconds).
Boeing's argument was that should it malfunction, pilots would treat it as a Trim Runaway, disable the trim system, and then they would be able to manually adjust the trim (remember the 737 is that archaic the flight deck controls are still mechanically connected to the control surfaces).
However as the Trim only ran for a short period of time, it likely confused the pilots, as it wasn't a conventional runaway, which would have ran continually. Instead it ran for a period of time, stopped, and if MCAS still thought the plane was approaching stalling, would run again, with no limits placed on the number of times it could intervene.
This is what caused the roller coaster on the fateful crashes, as MCAS would force the nose down, pilots would trim it back up, and the cycle repeated.
Then there was the issue with the manual system. By the time the pilots disabled the trim system, the aerodynamic forces were that great, that the worlds strongest man would struggle to wind the trim handles.
I seem to remember one of the crews did disable the system, but then couldn't get the plane back into trim.
Certain factions wanted to blame it all on the pilots, but they were put in a situation by a system they didn't know existed, let alone how it operated. Which was compounded by a 'back-up' system they couldn't physically operate. Those same factions were also willing to say how US pilots would never let it happen, but I don't remember any US operated planes being found to have suffered from a similar sensor failure.
Ultimately hiding MCAS was a profit driven decision to bury the handling issues and avoid re-training, which had been stipulated by one of Boeing's biggest customers.
Not clear to me how the cultural issues described at Boeing are only impacting these later 737 derivatives, or were they not designing and building other stuff in the last 5 years?
Fear of change, I suspect, because change incurs costs.
You can sort of see it in the 787 as well, which is very impressive under the skin from a technical perspective and handles like a gem in turbulence, but has been hamstrung by management refusing to accept changes to the way things operate. So you end up with a lot of unnecessary button pushing and knob twiddling in the flight deck because "the 777 does it this way", or "that's how we did it on the 707", while the flight management computer frequently thinks it's a 767.
There are little things, like the park brake being electronic yet designed to mimic the mechanism they nicked off a ride-on lawnmower in the 60s, and then bigger issues like the utter refusal of the computers to tell you what they're actually thinking.
Not clear to me how the cultural issues described at Boeing are only impacting these later 737 derivatives, or were they not designing and building other stuff in the last 5 years?
A lot of it is the length of the design cycles.
I did some design and layout work in aerospace in the mid 90's (Bit of Rolls Royce, bit of Airbus, bit of Boeing).
By the time those layouts (Engineering Concept stuff) hit their first prototype flights, i'd moved into Automotive, designed a complete platform, launched it, done two facelifts (inc. a new powertrain), started designing the replacement platform and started planning for End Of Life of the original one. Also then emigrated and started on a new platform launch.
So the MD take over took a couple of decades to bite properly. There were lots of odd decisions being made, but the engineering organisation and processes are massive and have a lot of inertia.
I would guess it really bit hard once you had finally got rid of the majority of those time served guys who had been in senior tech roles through the 80's and 90's. So those who were in their mid 30s and over when the merger happened. Who will mostly be retired by now. And most of *their* managers and directors would have been gone 10-15 years ago.
it might surprise you to learn that the engines are held on with less bolts
3 in most/many cases.
Well, with wing mounted engines anyway.
You wouldn't use a halfords torque wrench to do them up...
So, who wants to fly on the 777-X with folding wingtips, designed and built by the same people………..
So, who wants to fly on the 777-X with folding wingtips, designed and built by the same people………..
What's the non-normal checklist if they suffer unscheduled disassembly?
“I’m sure there’s a reset for that……..”
Tui Norwegian and Icelandair fly the MAX too
Tui are mostly Max 8, but they've cleverly left off the Max on the side of the plane and the in flight safety sheet.
Just says 737 8.
Flown on 4 of them now with Tui. No choice really other than not doing a Tui holiday (which would be my choice, not a fan of package holidays, but it's a group decision).
While the nose diving is considered "fixed" I'm still wary. I believe the fix is training and also concerned it's aerodynamically unbalanced and requires computers to correct it in flight. If something goes down and had to glide or without the computer, it's going down hard. Though it's all fly by wire these days in most modern jets anyway.
I can hear to post that. As if Boeing weren’t already under scrutiny….
A self inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head?
A self inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head?
Twice, just in case the first one didn't do the job.
I believe the fix is training and also concerned it’s aerodynamically unbalanced and requires computers to correct it in flight. If something goes down and had to glide or without the computer, it’s going down hard. Though it’s all fly by wire these days in most modern jets anyway.
Literally everything now requires the computer to fly it / correct it / etc. The aerodynamic balance under high thrust conditions wasn't the particular issue, it was the system designed to correct that is/was at fault.
Incidentally, the fix is not just training, the MCAS system has been redesigned: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-update/737-max-software-updates#overview
Literally everything now requires the computer to fly it / correct it / etc.
All modern passenger transport planes are naturally stable apart from at the very extremes of their aerodynamic envelope. That’s why MCAS was introduced in the first place.
A self inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head?
Same team who helped Dr David Kelly to "commit suicide".