“maximizing shareholder values” the worst phrase to have ever entered the market system in every single industry. that is why. look at what happened to Muilenburg …he still walked away with over 60 million in benefits AFTER being let go because of the max crashes…he got his and who had to pick up the parts and the cost of his parachute?
2 Likes
And you are still missing the point. The problem at Boeing is a lax quality assurance system affecting both engineering design and final assembly. That has nothing to do with finances.
1 Like
Throwing down the gauntlet to “Boeing supporters” can only be for one reason … you are not a Boeing supporter.
When using quotation markd, it’s customary to get the wording of the quote right. Go back and read then we can talk about your failure of logic.
Sorry … “defenders.”
Really? 
Words have meaning.
There is a big difference between “Boeing supporter” and Bowing defender" especially when it relates to the MAX issue and that makes you logic leap a pretty big failure. Since I didn’t call out supporters but defenders why would it mean I want the company to fail? Hint: I don’t.
So once again, where did I ever post that I want Boeing to fail?
"Defender
Noun as in champion
Strongest matches:
protector sponsor supporter"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/thesaurus
thesaurus
(θɪsɔrəs IPA Pronunciation Guide )
Word forms: thesauruses plural
countable noun
A thesaurus is a reference book in which words with similar meanings are grouped together.
Similar…not same.
So once again where did I ever posted I WANT Boeing to fail? It’s hilarious because you asked that exact same question 3 years ago and it led to pretty bad beat down of your “aviation knowledge” in this very thread
Synonyms. Do you know what they are?
And you have a piss poor idea about what a beat down is too.
I didn’t say they don’t accept any I said they don’t accept from many countries. Yes they do accept credentials from many countries. I not talking about a civilian license I am talking about their ATP and 121 some transfer some don’t. We have numerous pilots who fly with us from foreign countries. One guy had over 10k hours in 737 but had to sit FO until he got 1k in 121. They can get their ATP but are ineligible for CA only FO until they do, from many countries you know that. You think the Etheopian FO would been able to fly 121 here in states with 321 total hours? It is not about wether they can fly or not it is about training and experience. We bumped up FAA requirements due to accidents here in US for that reason. I am neither a supporter or a defender I could care less about Boeing.
But besides all that the max accidents could have been simply prevented by flipping off the two auto trim switches.
There are 3 ways to override MCAS. The first is simply to use the electric trim switch on the yoke. Either pilot can do this. Even if the AOA sensor is malfunctioning, MCAS will not activate until 5 seconds after the last electric trim. So, if a little bit of trim is done every few seconds, MCAS will never activate. Not as simple as it sounds.
The 2nd way to override MCAS is simply to grab the trim wheel and stop it spinning. The trim wheel is on the center console next to each pilot’s leg. If a pilot sees MCAS trimming, the wheel will spin, but it can be stopped by just gripping it to stop it. Not as easy as it sounds.
The third way to override MCAS is to use the horizontal stabilizer trim cutout switches. Those are the same switches as were in the older 737 jets, so it’s not something new that needs to be learned. MCAS was new, but automatic trimming of the horizontal stabilizer was not new. The emergency procedure for runaway trim was still the appropriate procedure when a bird strike caused the AOA vane to be sheered off causing MCAS to activate over and over again. This was the procedure the Ethiopian Airlines crew executed, however, they made a fatal mistake in turning MCAS back on when there was a malfunctioning sensor. This seems to indicate they did not fully understand how the aircraft operates. The horizontal stabilizer trim wheel is difficult to turn manually when stabilizer is in high angle position if the airspeed is too high. They never took the thrust levers out of takeoff power. This may explain why the Ethiopian Airlines pilots turned MCAS back on. Easy.
The Lion accident the aircraft did it on the flight before. The crew followed the checklist. The second crew didn’t. However the plane shouldn’t have flown the second time.
3 Likes
yes that is why i mentioned 61.153 but as long as their training program matches ICAO standards then the transfer is fairly seamless and easy. But that is only to allow a transfer of licenses, most international pilots who fly into the hubs/bases with their own flag carriers do not require any sort of transfer hence my point about Ethiopian flying into ATL, IAD, LAX etc. but again that is getting way deep in the weeds and distracting from the point of the thread; the MAX
well that is not quite true and oversimplifies the accident. both the NTSB and the Ethiopian ministry of transport reports about the accident list that the cutout switches had been pressed
Cockpit voice recorder data indicated that the flight crew then discussed the STAB
TRIM CUTOUT switches, and shortly thereafter DFDR data were consistent with the STAB TRIM
CUTOUT switches being moved to CUTOUT
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ASR1901.pdf
agreed for the most part. its the same switch location but they did change the name marking on those switches and the functionality (MAIN ELEC and AUTOPILOT to PRI B/U)
On the newer 737 MAX, according to documents reviewed by The Times, those two switches were changed to perform the same function – flipping either one of them would turn off all electric controls of the stabilizer. That means there is no longer an option to turn off automated functions – such as MCAS – without also turning off the thumb buttons the pilots would normally use to control the stabilizer.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/
those are the part of the 7 steps memory item we all had to memorize. but that memory item, while simple, isnt done in a single 5sec flow like say the unreliable airspeed one. this is for the people who are not familiar with it; its set up as a checklist where you take each step and analyze whether that fixed the runway then you take the next step. (this is the one we used, STODR your operator may have slightly different wording or sequence)
- Control Column - Hold Firmly
- Autopilot (if engaged) - Disengage
- Autothrottle (if engaged) - Disengage
- Control Column and Thrust Levers - Control aircraft pitch attitude and airspeed
- Main Electric Stabilizer Trim - Reduce control column forces
- IF the runway STOPS after autopilot is disengaged - DO NOT re-engage autopilot or autothrottle
- If the runaway continues after the autopilot is disengaged -
A. STAB TRIM cutout switches (both) - CUTOUT
B. If the runaway continues -
a. Stabilizer Trim Wheel - Grasp & Hold
MCAS turns on only when the AP is disconnected.(which you see in step 2) and that is the fatal mistake that Boeing did not tell the airline who bought the plane or the pilots who flew the aircraft. More importantly it would reset and reactivate every 5 seconds if the pilot used more stab switch imput. (this was actually changed when the max was ungrounded to a single nose down activation per high AOA state)
The other fixe that was which would have greatly helped the crew SA would have been seeing AOA DISAGREE message on PFD which was not a standard option unless you paid extra…now that is not the case anymore
and this goes back to Boeing many failure during the entire max both with the crashes and the door plug, the anti ice issue , the wiring, the rudder bolt. and why its indefensible. The culture that has developed to maximize shareholder value at any cost is now bearing those fruits.
For the portion of the examination focused on Boeing, the F.A.A. conducted 89 product audits, a type of review that looks at aspects of the production process. The plane maker passed 56 of the audits and failed 33 of them, with a total of 97 instances of alleged noncompliance,
i mean for ■■■■ sake…
In another instance, the F.A.A. saw Spirit mechanics apply liquid Dawn soap to a door seal “as lubricant in the fit-up process,” according to the document. The door seal was then cleaned with a wet cheesecloth, the document said, noting that instructions were “vague and unclear on what specifications/actions are to be followed or recorded by the mechanic.”
That’s nice.
What have they done for me lately.
Got their entire 787 fleet grounded for battery fire issues
Got all the 737 max types grounded due to MCAS issues
Got the max9 fleet grounded for door plug
To keep in mind, last time a type was grounded before was in the last 70s with the DC10s…
You tell me. Chances are every time you travel you fly in one of their aircraft.
There are roughly 100,000 Airline flights every day. How many have serious issues that relate to design or manufacturing errors?
Good development. Hopefully means there will be accountability and no golden parachute
The message, a copy of which was shared with NPR by Mark Lindquist, an attorney representing passengers, lists an investigative case number and tells the passengers they should contact the FBI through an email address set up specifically for people who were on the flight.
“We are pleased the DOJ is investigating,” Lindquist said. “We want answers, accountability, and safer planes. Pressure from the DOJ should help.”
Lindquist, who represents 27 of the 171 passengers on the Boeing airliner, says his clients will speak to federal investigators if they’re asked.
If the passengers are victims of a crime, then so are Alaska Airlines and Boeing. If the bolts were deliberately not installed or removed, the person(s) who did it is (are) accountable.
But those guys work for Boeing. So isn’t Boeing still responsible since they built the plane? Unless the issue was caused by bad maintenance which in that case isn’t Alaska airlines responsible in that case?
Both of you knock it off
Yes. They worked on contract for Boeing. But if the failure to install those bolts was a deliberate act, Boeing was never in a position to catch it. The fuselage section containing the plugged door was delivered to the Boeing assembly plant fully assembled. But presumably, the FAA inspector who is supposed to sign off on work was.
I don’t understand your last question. The plane was two months old. The loss of the door plug in flight had absolutely nothing to do with maintenance or lack thereof by the Airlines.
??? 
TRC and I are discussing the topic. What’s the problem?
