|
Post by tomclen on Oct 8, 2019 15:57:28 GMT -5
mikegarrison Nothing you say is probably wrong. But you're getting into the weeds of how the plane was made. If the FAA still had the manpower it had 20 years ago, this series of tragedies might have been avoided. You probably read THIS STORY back in March. My point is simply that corporations like Boeing are now calling the shots (now more than ever) and the government agencies that are designed to protect us have been dramatically weakened. It's the most under-covered story in D.C. IMO, it's why so many in one party are so willing to tolerate the current administration. Because they are getting exactly what they've always hoped for: a government that is so dramatically shrunk that the corporate elite can have their way. Lies, incompetence, world decisions that negatively impact our allies; tariffs that hurt farmers - it's all okay as long as the corporations are free of burdensome oversight. And I'm sure you read this story about Southwest Airlines Pilots union suing Boeing.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2019 16:10:21 GMT -5
Yes, but this is simply not new. All the airplane regulators rely on the engineers at the companies themselves to do much of the certification work. This has been going on for decades. And it works. It's not new; it's just that this is the first time a lot of people have heard of it. Engineers who have this role have many legal responsibilities. I know many people who do this, and I trust their work.
There is an inherent conflict of interest potential, but there are also a lot of systems in place to protect against that.
Ultimately, these crashes were not caused by airplane designers circumventing the safety regulations. They were caused (as all complicated things are) by many factors working together. But the safety rules were followed, as far as I know. It's just that they turned out to be based on some mistaken assumptions about pilot responses.
As for lawsuits, that's a fact of life. Especially in the US. The SWA pilots lost money because they lost flight time, and they want someone to compensate them for it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2019 16:14:12 GMT -5
I've probably already said more than I should. I run the risk here of accidentally saying things that are wrong.
All I'm saying is that this stuff is COMPLICATED. If you believe it's all a simple morality tale about money-grubbing corporations releasing shoddy products, then you are IMO part of the problem, not part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 8, 2019 17:11:53 GMT -5
No I don't think it's as simple as money-grubbing corporations making shoddy products. Certainly not for a company like Boeing or Airbus who have too much market share to lose because of unsafe products.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 8, 2019 17:29:53 GMT -5
The last year has been very stressful, but believe me, I understand that it was much worse for some other people.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 8, 2019 22:26:50 GMT -5
I've probably already said more than I should. I run the risk here of accidentally saying things that are wrong. All I'm saying is that this stuff is COMPLICATED. If you believe it's all a simple morality tale about money-grubbing corporations releasing shoddy products, then you are IMO part of the problem, not part of the solution. Of course, a modern commerical airliner has millions of parts. Development cost of a new airliner run into the billions of dollars even before the first delivery. High technical demands and heavy cost present a high barrier to entry for any would-be new airliner manufacturer, which is why we end up with only the Boeing-Airbus duopoly. But, there is a legitimate question to be raised in the development process of the MAX in how the engineers missed the dangers of the MCAS. It may not be a simple morality tale, but the public has a right to know how Boeing got the MAX wrong, including asking whether cost savings was the primary driving force in the MAX design, even if that turn out not to be case, they do need to ask such questions.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 9, 2019 0:12:36 GMT -5
I've probably already said more than I should. I run the risk here of accidentally saying things that are wrong. All I'm saying is that this stuff is COMPLICATED. If you believe it's all a simple morality tale about money-grubbing corporations releasing shoddy products, then you are IMO part of the problem, not part of the solution. Of course, a modern commerical airliner has millions of parts. Development cost of a new airliner run into the billions of dollars even before the first delivery. High technical demands and heavy cost present a high barrier to entry for any would-be new airliner manufacturer, which is why we end up with only the Boeing-Airbus duopoly. But, there is a legitimate question to be raised in the development process of the MAX in how the engineers missed the dangers of the MCAS. It may not be a simply morality tale, but the public has a right to know how Boeing got the MAX wrong, including asking whether cost savings was the primary driving force in the MAX design, even if that turn out not to be case, they do need to ask such questions. Ask away. Just don't presume you know the answers before you even ask. (Well, don't ask me. I wasn't directly involved and can't speak for anybody who was. But these questions have been asked and will continue to be asked. Boeing is unfortunately severely constrained in what answers they can give, however, because the protocols for accident investigations still have them gagged. The Indonesian report is still not out yet, AFAIK, much less the Ethiopian report.)
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 9, 2019 0:27:42 GMT -5
Of course, a modern commerical airliner has millions of parts. Development cost of a new airliner run into the billions of dollars even before the first delivery. High technical demands and heavy cost present a high barrier to entry for any would-be new airliner manufacturer, which is why we end up with only the Boeing-Airbus duopoly. But, there is a legitimate question to be raised in the development process of the MAX in how the engineers missed the dangers of the MCAS. It may not be a simply morality tale, but the public has a right to know how Boeing got the MAX wrong, including asking whether cost savings was the primary driving force in the MAX design, even if that turn out not to be case, they do need to ask such questions. Ask away. Just don't presume you know the answers before you even ask. (Well, don't ask me. I wasn't directly involved and can't speak for anybody who was. But these questions have been asked and will continue to be asked. Boeing is unfortunately severely constrained in what answers they can give, however, because the protocols for accident investigations still have them gagged. The Indonesian report is still not out yet, AFAIK, much less the Ethiopian report.) Suspicions and speculation is only natural for humans. Especially when you are dealing with airliners carrying hundreds of passengers and the concurrent cost in human lives and anguish and suffering caused to the loved ones from any crash, I see no problem for one to pay extra attention on Boeing.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Oct 9, 2019 10:11:29 GMT -5
Ask away. Just don't presume you know the answers before you even ask. (Well, don't ask me. I wasn't directly involved and can't speak for anybody who was. But these questions have been asked and will continue to be asked. Boeing is unfortunately severely constrained in what answers they can give, however, because the protocols for accident investigations still have them gagged. The Indonesian report is still not out yet, AFAIK, much less the Ethiopian report.) Suspicions and speculation is only natural for humans. Especially when you are dealing with airliners carrying hundreds of passengers and the concurrent cost in human lives and anguish and suffering caused to the loved ones from any crash, I see no problem for one to pay extra attention on Boeing. I think it is legitimate to ask of the general approach to engineering large complex products and systems like an airplane, or a nuclear plant. I think teh general approach to design things in systems is a good development but I am also afraid that people are trying to run roughshod over necessary engineering practices in a bid to be more efficient and profitable.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 9, 2019 10:26:46 GMT -5
Suspicions and speculation is only natural for humans. Especially when you are dealing with airliners carrying hundreds of passengers and the concurrent cost in human lives and anguish and suffering caused to the loved ones from any crash, I see no problem for one to pay extra attention on Boeing. I think it is legitimate to ask of the general approach to engineering large complex products and systems like an airplane, or a nuclear plant. I think teh general approach to design things in systems is a good development but I am also afraid that people are trying to run roughshod over necessary engineering practices in a bid to be more efficient and profitable. Absolutely, it is perfectly fine for people to question whether Boeing's cost-savings overruled safety engineering, whether that is too simplistic or not, people have a right to ask that question when stuff like this happens to Boeing.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Oct 9, 2019 13:34:15 GMT -5
I think it is legitimate to ask of the general approach to engineering large complex products and systems like an airplane, or a nuclear plant. I think teh general approach to design things in systems is a good development but I am also afraid that people are trying to run roughshod over necessary engineering practices in a bid to be more efficient and profitable. Absolutely, it is perfectly fine for people to question whether Boeing's cost-savings overruled safety engineering, whether that is too simplistic or not, people have a right to ask that question when stuff like this happens to Boeing. I don't mean just Boeing, I mean engineering practices as it is driven by commerce, and I think the aircraft industry is generally better off because the possibility of loss of life and penalties are too great. People will pile on the aircraft industry when they F up because it is visible but how about the appliance manufacturers and most recently the lithium ion battery manufacturers.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 11, 2019 23:12:34 GMT -5
Not sure if this means anything, re-organization at the top: www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/boeing-ceo-loses-chairman-title-as-company-separates-roles-after-737-max-crisis.htmlBoeing’s board removed CEO Dennis Muilenburg as chairman so he can focus on running the company after the 737 Max crisis, the company said Friday.
Boeing is facing numerous investigations and criticism over its 737 Max planes after two fatal crashes within five months of one another killed of 346 people.
The manufacturer is scrambling to get regulators to allow its 737 Max planes to fly again. They have been grounded worldwide since mid-March, after the second of the two crashes, an Ethiopian Airlines flight with 157 people on board. A Lion Air 737 Max went down in Indonesia shortly after takeoff on Oct. 29, 2018, killing all 189 people on the flight.
Boeing said the separation of the two roles will allow Muilenburg to focus on getting the Max back to service and that lead director David Calhoun will serve as non-executive chairman.
“The board has full confidence in Dennis as CEO and believes this division of labor will enable maximum focus on running the business with the board playing an active oversight role,” Calhoun said in the statement.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 11, 2019 23:44:17 GMT -5
Many experts are firmly opposed to CEOs also being Chairs of the BOD. This is probably a good thing, although I suspect Dennis doesn't really agree.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 13, 2019 0:56:45 GMT -5
Many experts are firmly opposed to CEOs also being Chairs of the BOD. This is probably a good thing, although I suspect Dennis doesn't really agree. Never should have performed both roles in the first place...
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Oct 13, 2019 7:54:02 GMT -5
Many experts are firmly opposed to CEOs also being Chairs of the BOD. This is probably a good thing, although I suspect Dennis doesn't really agree. Never should have perform both roles in the first place... This should be a red flag for any stock holder.
|
|