Jump to content

Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max crashes killing 157


Nueces River Rat

Recommended Posts

This is a Boeing issue from start to finish. They hid the impact of the MCAS system. They downplayed the significance of it. The FAA may be culpable because they surrendered over sight when they should not have, but Boeing was duplicitous thru the entire process. The FAA didn't know what they didn't know because they gave up over sight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is a Boeing issue from start to finish. They hid the impact of the MCAS system. They downplayed the significance of it. The FAA may be culpable because they surrendered over sight when they should not have, but Boeing was duplicitous thru the entire process. The FAA didn't know what they didn't know because they gave up over sight....as Boeing worked very hard, for many years, to get them to do.  Lobbying multiple members of Congress and officials within the executive branch.  The FAA didn't work here....which is exactly the result that Boeing wanted and achieved.

Again, the part that Bobby loves to skip.  The FAA behaved EXACTLY as it was told to....by Boeing, through its bought-and-paid for assets in Congress and the executive branch.  The FAA worked EXACTLY like Boeing designed it to, and now Boeing defenders want to point their fingers at a non-functional monster of their own creation.  It's amazing to watch.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, the part that Bobby loves to skip.  The FAA behaved EXACTLY as it was told to....by Boeing, through its bought-and-paid for assets in Congress and the executive branch.  The FAA worked EXACTLY like Boeing designed it to, and now Boeing defenders want to point their fingers at a non-functional monster of their own creation.  It's amazing to watch.

Yep, and Bobbys right, it's occurring on a scale we should all be very concerned about. Corporations dictating to our gov't (and more precisely to our citizens) that they don't need over sight.  That in no way excuses Boeings sole culpability here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is a Boeing issue from start to finish. They hid the impact of the MCAS system. They downplayed the significance of it. The FAA may be culpable because they surrendered over sight when they should not have, but Boeing was duplicitous thru the entire process. The FAA didn't know what they didn't know because they gave up over sight.

Now that I agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, the part that Bobby loves to skip.  The FAA behaved EXACTLY as it was told to....by Boeing, through its bought-and-paid for assets in Congress and the executive branch.  The FAA worked EXACTLY like Boeing designed it to, and now Boeing defenders want to point their fingers at a non-functional monster of their own creation.  It's amazing to watch.

If the FAA was told to give up oversight by members of the government from whatever branch, and they agreed to do so then they gave up their responsibility to regulate and inspect the process.  It’s plain and simple  they abdicated their role.

I was  just doing what I was told is not an excuse. 

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

If the FAA was told to give up oversight by members of the government from whatever branch, and they agreed to do so then they gave up their responsibility to regulate and inspect the process.  It’s plain and simple  they abdicated their role.

I was  just doing what I was told is not an excuse. 

The problem is that you seem to be operating under the misconception that congress-funded executive branch agencies are independent entities.  They are not.  They do as they are told.  It's how they are designed. 

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, and Bobbys right, it's occurring on a scale we should all be very concerned about. Corporations dictating to our gov't (and more precisely to our citizens) that they don't need over sight.  That in no way excuses Boeings sole culpability here.

 

Just like Wall Street facing no prosecution for the crash

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem is that you seem to be operating under the misconception that congress-funded executive branch agencies are independent entities.  They are not.  They do as they are told.  It's how they are designed. 

Look, if whoever has authority over the FAA, DOT maybe?, tells the FAA to burn down their offices and commit seppuku they’re not going to do it. Similarly, if they were told to let aircraft manufacturers to certify their own aircraft they should have told them to pound sand. Is there any evidence that this coercion met with any resistance whatsoever? If the answer is no then the FAA is culpable, and ought to point the light at whoever ordered the code red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Guy, I actually said I don't think that is your intention. I said that you struggle understanding the logical implications of your statements and that you are a poor communicator.  For instance, the next 6 paragraphs after this sentence do everything possible to emphasize every other possible cause of the accidents AND to minimize Boeing's own contributions. But, you finally got it right at the very end:

"One’s deeds far outweighs the others, but your kidding yourself if you don’t think the FAA, the purchasing airlines and their training departments are s*itting themselves while hoping the litigation and blame hammer doesn’t fall a their feet. "

Everyone on this thread has agrees with this sentiment at this point. Yes, others fucked up. Yes, others face liability. But, "One's deeds far outweighs the others," Boeing's. Period. Next time, start there. Then, explain the other failures in the system. When your thesis paragraph of every post appears to be "others fucked up and Boeing's fucks up weren't that bad" and when you respond to any emphasis on Boeing's fuck ups with "but you don't understand, other bad things happened too," you'll have to forgive people for getting the impression that you're deflecting.  Because, rhetorically and logically, that is what you're doing. 

At no point did I say that Boeing’s f ups weren’t that bad. Feel free to find any quote I’ve made in this thread to that point. Particularly once some of be single sourced system ind dropped. In fact, at no point did I discuss the failures of the feds, Boeing or the purchasing airlines in any depth at all. That’s not my area of expertise. I did discuss the failings of the pilots in depth. I can talk very intelligently about that. 

If you came to the incorrect conclusion that I was absolving Boeing then that leap is on you. For example, one poster added an article that revealed that the MAX simulator couldn’t imitate the system correctly as though that was damning information. Except that he didn’t know that meant that the plane was easier to recover from a stall than the sim, and that airlines don’t have the time to train all sorts of extraneous failures. So ultimately it wasn’t a big deal. So no, I wasn’t incensed about Boeing’s failure to get their Max sim up to snuff. Because the objective reality is that it didn’t matter.  If you want to take the leap that that’s a defense of Boeing, as said poster did, then it’s a poor assumption. Every part of the accident chain failed massively. And they all deserve heat even though Boeing acted the most egregiously.  Burn post after post is made excusing those other links as though Boeing misdeeds excuse the rest. Even if Boeing’s misdeeds were some of the genesis of the other failures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Fight on brother. You're not making your points clearly, but sure, it is everyone else that is misunderstanding you. Peace. 

The guy is either being paid by Boeing to post here or is the dumbest pilot in history. Take your pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look guys. I’m a pilot so none of you know anything about what you’re talking about on this particular subject.

And if Boeing bought off the FAA that’s obviously the governments fault for allowing that to happen, not Boeing’s. They just did what smart businessman do because in case you forgot, I’m a pilot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the FAA was told to give up oversight by members of the government from whatever branch, and they agreed to do so then they gave up their responsibility to regulate and inspect the process.  It’s plain and simple  they abdicated their role.
I was  just doing what I was told is not an excuse. 


I abdicated my role in marrying Beyonce [checks notes] because she’s already married and wont let me [and page 2] and has no idea who am I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, the part that Bobby loves to skip.  The FAA behaved EXACTLY as it was told to....by Boeing, through its bought-and-paid for assets in Congress and the executive branch.  The FAA worked EXACTLY like Boeing designed it to, and now Boeing defenders want to point their fingers at a non-functional monster of their own creation.  It's amazing to watch.

12 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep, and Bobbys right, it's occurring on a scale we should all be very concerned about. Corporations dictating to our gov't (and more precisely to our citizens) that they don't need over sight.  That in no way excuses Boeings sole culpability here.

 

I agree with both of these and I agree with Bobby that this is part of a larger problem. The government is allowing themselves to be bought off by corporations who donate to politicians that allow to reduce oversight and regulation. It's a vicious cycle.

Government has 1 job, protect it's citizens. That doesn't mean just military. Corporations absolutely have the right to make a profit. That's the idea. But you have to do it with an independent 3rd party looking over your shoulder to make sure you're not endangering the public. Too much regulation is bad, but too little is worse.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RPM said:

I agree with both of these and I agree with Bobby that this is part of a larger problem. The government is allowing themselves to be bought off by corporations who donate to politicians that allow to reduce oversight and regulation. It's a vicious cycle.

Government has 1 job, protect it's citizens. That doesn't mean just military. Corporations absolutely have the right to make a profit. That's the idea. But you have to do it with an independent 3rd party looking over your shoulder to make sure you're not endangering the public. Too much regulation is bad, but too little is worse.

 

Couldn't agree more.  Campaign finance reform would save lives......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Regulatory capture” or whatever y’all call it is a huge problem in this country, but nobody wants to upset the apple cart. I mean, look at the SEC for example. Is there more of a joke of a regulatory agency than the SEC? The FCC also. After the subprime fiasco it was painfully evident that the government is going to stop at nothing to please its owner, corporate America.

Edited by XYZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1T8284

Boeing decided in November 2017 to defer a software update to correct the so-called AOA Disagree alert defect until 2020, three years after discovering the flaw, U.S. Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Rick Larsen said in a press release on Friday. Boeing only accelerated this schedule after the Lion Air accident in Indonesia, they added.

Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said by email that a company safety review found the absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation.

"Based on the safety review, the update was scheduled for the MAX 10 entry into service in 2020," Johndroe said. "We fell short in the implementation of the AoA Disagree alert and are taking steps to address these issues so they do not occur again."

Boeing has said it discovered the problem in 2017, soon after it began delivering its top-selling 737 MAX aircraft to customers. But it did not inform the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about the defect until after the Lion Air crash more than one year later, the lawmakers said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2019 at 7:42 AM, XYZ said:

“Regulatory capture” or whatever y’all call it is a huge problem in this country, but nobody wants to upset the apple cart. I mean, look at the SEC for example. Is there more of a joke of a regulatory agency than the SEC? The FCC also. After the subprime fiasco it was painfully evident that the government is going to stop at nothing to please its owner, corporate America.

SEC SEC SEC !!!!  wait..... wrong thread....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1T8284

Boeing decided in November 2017 to defer a software update to correct the so-called AOA Disagree alert defect until 2020, three years after discovering the flaw, U.S. Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Rick Larsen said in a press release on Friday. Boeing only accelerated this schedule after the Lion Air accident in Indonesia, they added.

Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said by email that a company safety review found the absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation.

"Based on the safety review, the update was scheduled for the MAX 10 entry into service in 2020," Johndroe said. "We fell short in the implementation of the AoA Disagree alert and are taking steps to address these issues so they do not occur again."

Boeing has said it discovered the problem in 2017, soon after it began delivering its top-selling 737 MAX aircraft to customers. But it did not inform the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about the defect until after the Lion Air crash more than one year later, the lawmakers said.

Boeing executives need anal exams from a herd of very large bull elephants, in full rut, over and over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/734248714/pilots-criticize-boeing-saying-737-max-should-never-have-been-approved

it's npr, so let's give them the impressions.

Quote

Retired Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger told a congressional subcommittee Wednesday that an automated flight control system on the 737 Max "was fatally flawed and should never have been approved."

"These crashes are demonstrable evidence that our current system of aircraft design and certification failed us," Sullenberger told lawmakers. "The accidents should never have happened."

ooch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Nothing to rebut. That was a typical congressional dog and pony show with no knew information presented. And although Sully was a great advocate for professional pilots at the time of his accident most would prefer he stopped talking.

Lulz that will make the mob happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

My reservation next month back from Sacramento to Houston says it is on a Max.  Are they flying yet?  This is United.

Your flight will be the first Max put back into service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct.
MAX8 is the same size as a -800. Same but different.

MAX9 is the same size as a -900ER. Same but different.

And that class action lawsuit appears to be from an Air Canada guy. They apparently don't have cancellation pay in their contract for fleet groundings, so he's losing money every month. Why not sue I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...