Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double [Archive]

ProPax

30th Jan 2020, 11:25

Just read this on Flight Global:
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-still-deciding-which-market-segment-its-next-aircraft-should-target/136438.article

Among the sea of nothingness and abbreviations (NMA, NSA, FSA), the phrase that caught my attention:
"I want to be sure I understand everything about the widebody, narrowbody world," says David Calhoun, the company's CEO.

The guy's been sitting on the Boeing's board of directors for ELEVEN YEARS, and he still "wants to be sure he understands" the only two segments his company works in!!! I'm sorry but I don't think Boeing has any time for the chief's soul searching. What it needs is someone at the helm who actually knows what he's doing. And then it needs to brace for what looks increasingly like a fight for survival.

Too harsh?

Gipsy Queen

30th Jan 2020, 12:04

Just read this on Flight Global:
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-still-deciding-which-market-segment-its-next-aircraft-should-target/136438.article

Among the sea of nothingness and abbreviations (NMA, NSA, FSA), the phrase that caught my attention:

The guy's been sitting on the Boeing's board of directors for ELEVEN YEARS, and he still "wants to be sure he understands" the only two segments his company works in!!! I'm sorry but I don't think Boeing has any time for the chief's soul searching. What it needs is someone at the helm who actually knows what he's doing. And then it needs to brace for what looks increasingly like a fight for survival.

Too harsh?

Well, perhaps a bit. I suspect he intended to convey something slightly different but as it stands, it is a remarkably crass statement made at a time when Boeing cannot afford any more PR disasters.

It is a terrible shame that a fine company, responsible for so many successful products, should be brought so low.

SamYeager

30th Jan 2020, 12:05

I was under the impression that Boeing had already announced a $12bn line of credit? Presumably the markets are assuming that Boeing has had the sense to chuck everything, including the kitchen sink, into this set of accounts to draw a line under this issue?

DaveReidUK

30th Jan 2020, 12:36

it is a remarkably crass statement made at a time when Boeing cannot afford any more PR disasters.

I must be reading a different article.

Of the three quotes attributed to Calhoun

"We have asked the team to step back and reassess our commercial product development strategy to determine what family of airplanes will be needed in the future."

"This is a decision [that] me and our new commercial aircraft leader wanted to make. We will not design our next airplane on the basis of the A321. I know where the NMA is targeted now. I want to be sure I understand everything about the widebody, narrowbody world."

"I want to make sure we have an airplane [specification] that I believe in. As soon as we come to a [specification] on what we want to do, we will move forward very quickly."

I can't see anything that can remotely be described as "crass".

vlieger

30th Jan 2020, 13:06

I can't see anything that can remotely be described as "crass".

Perhaps not, but to me this whole 737 MAX scandal indicates a degree of incompetence that goes right to the top of a once iconic company. How the mighty have fallen.

fdr

30th Jan 2020, 13:20

Of the three quotes attributed to Calhoun

re your quotes, is English a second language to the new CEO? Apparently there is a King now in the white house, so we appear to have come full circle, back to old blighty. perhaps it is the media, but, golly.

"Esta es una decisión [que] yo y nuestro nuevo líder de aviones comerciales queríamos tomar"
"Это решение, которое [я] и наш новый лидер коммерческих самолетов хотели принять"
"આ એક નિર્ણય છે [કે] હું અને અમારા નવા વ્યવસાયિક વિમાન નેતા લેવા માંગતા હતા"

yep, maybe it works in Gujarati... more than english at least.

568

30th Jan 2020, 16:04

Previous post.
"I was also thinking that as the share value increased a little today.
787 production to slow to approximately 12 this year and then 10 the next due to orders in Asia, so we shall have to see what transpires."

More like 10 to 12 per MONTH.

Thanks for the correction.
I meant to add "per month" but failed miserably!

Gipsy Queen

30th Jan 2020, 16:30

I must be reading a different article.

Of the three quotes attributed to Calhoun, I can't see anything that can remotely be described as "crass".

My comment was made exclusively in respect of ProPax's submission.
I made no reference to the original material since I have not read any of it. My preference is to follow the Wittgenstein maxim; "Whereof I do not know, thereof I cannot speak". Consequently, I'm content to let my adjective stand.

DaveReidUK

30th Jan 2020, 17:26

My comment was made exclusively in respect of ProPax's submission.
I made no reference to the original material since I have not read any of it. My preference is to follow the Wittgenstein maxim; "Whereof I do not know, thereof I cannot speak". Consequently, I'm content to let my adjective stand.

Fair enough - one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

pattern_is_full

30th Jan 2020, 17:54

The guy's been sitting on the Boeing's board of directors for ELEVEN YEARS, and he still "wants to be sure he understands" the only two segments his company works in!!! I'm sorry but I don't think Boeing has any time for the chief's soul searching. What it needs is someone at the helm who actually knows what he's doing. And then it needs to brace for what looks increasingly like a fight for survival.

Too harsh?

Maybe.

Boeing's problem right now is that they have to replace TWO aircraft types rather soon - the 737, which the MAX debacle shows has reached (and overreached) its limits, and the 757/767.

Boeing hoped continuing to expand the 737 meant the NMA could focus on the other part of the market - sub-787 wide-body.

Now the question arises - can Boeing afford to develop both a new single-aisle and a new double-aisle at the same time? Does there exist any one design (SA or DA) that can simultaneously handle, via fuselage stretching/shrinking, both ends of the "medium" market? Or other commonalities (757/767-style) that can reduce the total costs of two aircraft designs? And what will be the best choice for the market/economy/world situation of 2030, when the NMA or NMA/NSA actually goes into service?

That requires one h*ll of a crystal ball - especially given Boeing's financial constraints. It will amount to "betting the company all over again" on one choice or the other.

On the other question - I would not expect a board member to be as completely up-to-speed on all the details of a company's plans as the CEO - otherwise, why waste money on a CEO? Calhoun is having to do a "quick-study" course on how Boeing's world has changed over the past 12-15 months. And at this point, he probably is not fully confident that the decisions of the dismissed CEO were trustworthy, so they are all subject to review.

OldnGrounded

30th Jan 2020, 18:00

re your quotes, is English a second language to the new CEO? Apparently there is a King now in the white house, so we appear to have come full circle, back to old blighty. perhaps it is the media, but, golly.

We can blame the media for many things, but few writers or editors at even the lowest tier of English-language outlets would have slipped the "me" in there.

Deltasierra010

30th Jan 2020, 18:04

The share price went up because investors believe Boeing are too big to fail!. Maybe that is the real outcome of the 737 MAX affair.
The uncertainty in my mind is will the Max actually fly again ? , what are the consequences of breaking all those new aircraft?.

WHBM

30th Jan 2020, 19:45

Boeing's problem right now is that they have to replace TWO aircraft types rather soon - the 737, which the MAX debacle shows has reached (and overreached) its limits, and the 757/767.
I don't think there are a lot of 757s left whose replacements are not already on order - principally A321Neos, of course, but also the larger Max. A good proportion of the 767s have already gone as well, and by the time any clean sheet gets to the delivery stage those will be history too.

pax britanica

30th Jan 2020, 21:14

As to the size of the loss the usual corporate wisdom is that any loss is bad so if you have one you may as well make it a big one to get rid of all kinds of nasties lurking in the accounts and get the matte over and done with. Get your banks onside first and there is no great problem
A huge severance pay for a CEO who put them in a loss making position for the first time in twenty years and trashed their good name is little short of criminal and shows utter contempt for small shareholders staff and some customers

vlieger

30th Jan 2020, 21:22

It’s criminal negligence, pure and simple:

Within the aviation industry, with its massive infrastructural needs, the state has always played a big role. Perversely, after deregulation in the 1980s, Boeing was allowed to effectively become a public entity with private profits. It gladly accepted the money and the safety net from the American public. In return, it has made private shareholders and upper management fabulously rich, while producing aircraft that put the public at risk. The laws of capitalism have a logic of their own and after decades of “ripping up the rules” and cutting corners in search of profit, the chickens are coming home to roost.

https://www.marxist.com/capitalism-kills-new-revelations-highlight-boeing-s-criminal-negligence.htm

tdracer

30th Jan 2020, 21:29

It’s criminal negligence, pure and simple:

www.marxist.com/ (https://www.marxist.com/capitalism-kills-new-revelations-highlight-boeing-s-criminal-negligence.htm)

Marxist.com - right, no agenda there...:ugh:
I suppose the next article will explain why Venezuela is really a huge success and it's all the West's fault that they have issues there...

vlieger

30th Jan 2020, 21:35

I suppose the next article will explain why Venezuela is really a huge success and it's all the West's fault that they have issues there...

Straw man argument, who said anything about Venezuela?
The former CEO walking off with more than 60 million in the bank after supervising the botched Max design, is pretty scandalous, wouldn’t you say?

JustinHeywood

30th Jan 2020, 22:20

Marxist.com - right, no agenda there...:ugh:
...

There does seem to be an awful lot of people VERY keen to preemptively dance on Boeing’s grave.

Are aircraft manufactured by Marxist states really that good?

.

tdracer

30th Jan 2020, 22:28

Straw man argument, who said anything about Venezuela?
The former CEO walking off with more than 60 million in the bank after supervising the botched Max design, is pretty scandalous, wouldn’t you say?
Point to the former CEO is also a straw man argument that in no way supports the related claims
Pointing out the consistent failure of Marxism is not a straw man argument. It's simply point out documented facts.

robdean

30th Jan 2020, 22:53

Pointing out the consistent failure of Marxism is not a straw man argument. It's simply point out documented facts.

I have no truck whatsoever with those who advocate Marxist government, but as a paradigm for economic analysis the work of Marx has been profoundly influential and successful, even amongst many who do not remotely consider themselves Marxists. You wont get far as a student of economics without knowing your Marx. Indeed Marxist *analysis* need not be at odds with capitalism (he highlighted and popularised the significance of capital), even though the implementation of government extrapolated from Marxist-derived principles by Lenin, Stalin, Mao (and the Trotskyist school of thought) proved to be a blight upon the Twentieth Century.

And now back to our regular programme...

ProPax

31st Jan 2020, 00:50

Now the question arises - can Boeing afford to develop both a new single-aisle and a new double-aisle at the same time? Does there exist any one design (SA or DA) that can simultaneously handle, via fuselage stretching/shrinking, both ends of the "medium" market? Or other commonalities (757/767-style) that can reduce the total costs of two aircraft designs? And what will be the best choice for the market/economy/world situation of 2030, when the NMA or NMA/NSA actually goes into service?

No crystal ball necessary. They can't. As a matter of fact no aircraft manufacturer on this planet can. And they need a lot more than two airplanes. They have a hole in their range stretching from A220 all the way to 787, which itself is slowing down in sales, plus they need to start working on the 777/X replacement because A350 is very young and is developing, and they have nothing in the top end of that segment. They need FOUR new models. An impossible task.

All that at the time when their engineering base is destroyed by decades of layoffs, their workforce is demoralized, their wallets are empty, and the regulators all over the world don't trust them. And now they have a CEO who needs to climb a college-sized learning curve at 62.

fr8tmastr

31st Jan 2020, 05:12

This should be a lesson of what happens when a company lets bean counters control the direction of a company. Unfortunately, it won't, the lessons to be learned will of course be hidden behind the never ending bean counter agenda of manipulating stock prices.

Given that Boeing may not put an airplane guy in charge of the airplane company, they should at least hire the PR firm that Airbus uses. After all not a single Airbus has ever gone down because of any kind of manufacture design or manufacturing flaw, all accidents are all the pilots fault. Even when company test pilots are flying.

Bidule

31st Jan 2020, 07:08

This should be a lesson of what happens when a company lets bean counters control the direction of a company. Unfortunately, it won't, the lessons to be learned will of course be hidden behind the never ending bean counter agenda of manipulating stock prices.

The bean counters, and I am not one, are only doing what the shareholders want: to increase the revenues per share, whichever the consequences are. The problem is that the shareholders - including many of us, possibly by the intermediate of pension funds - do not measure the consequences such as Boeing today, or low-cost airlines practices (pilots employment terms and conditions) for instance.

Even when company test pilots are flying.

Unfortunately, test pilots, in any company, may be faulty....

.

Skyjob

31st Jan 2020, 08:25

Now the question arises - can Boeing afford to develop both a new single-aisle and a new double-aisle at the same time? Does there exist any one design (SA or DA) that can simultaneously handle, via fuselage stretching/shrinking, both ends of the "medium" market?
As commented in a different thread, the fundamental of the above seems the most obvious. How? That's for Boeing to decide. A single product line replacing both previous ones (Max & NMA) envisaged makes most sense at this point.
Arguably, a separate DA may not be required if the design of the SA is superior (eg a wide enough space for passing in isle or even a cabin shape enabling either configuration depending on operator). Could for instance a configuration of 2/2/2 and 3/4 be established using a slightly wider cabin diameter? Using existing engine technology production time could be vastly reduced, maybe two years from go-ahead, especially considering all resources available now that NMA and Max work have essentially all but ceased

WHBM

31st Jan 2020, 13:39

The bean counters, and I am not one, are only doing what the shareholders want: to increase the revenues per share, whichever the consequences are. The problem is that the shareholders - including many of us, possibly by the intermediate of pension funds - do not measure the consequences such as Boeing today.
You are of course correct, and ultimately this Killing The Goose That lays The Golden Egg can destroy shareholder value. So what the corporate shareholders are judging is the moment when to get out before their value starts to go negative. It really reduces the whole stock market, and beyond that the overall economy, to a Ponzi Scheme.

In such conditions, and certainly with a product so on the edge of public safety, that's where a Regulator comes in to oversee things. And of course, with FAA certification, that is all set up and in place. But they don't seem to look for issues in depth any more - here there should have been a process where knowledgeable people at the Regulator looked in detail at the MCAS code as finally certified. But they were taking shortcuts, and I get the feeling at regulators that while they consider those with this technical ability somewhat expendible to fit a budget, the office admin lot make sure they are all still in post.

fizz57

1st Feb 2020, 08:28

There does seem to be an awful lot of people VERY keen to preemptively dance on Boeing’s grave.
.

Not really - just watching with rapt fascination as Boeing racks up nearly a year's worth of unsold aircraft without being visibly nearer a complete solution. Reminds me of the time I witnessed an ultimate test on a large pressure vessel.

10 billion dollars? that's in the same ballpark as the annual GDP of a number of small countries. Deep pockets, indeed.

roulishollandais

2nd Feb 2020, 13:34

The guy's been sitting on the Boeing's board of directors for ELEVEN YEARS, and he still "wants to be sure he understands" the only two segments his company works in!!!
Please open your eyes and your mind : A third segment is the computer ! Boeing, Airbus, FAA, NTSB, ICAO are still unable to manage the specificites of computing science which is totally different from aeronautics.
I.e; using computers in real time needs specific documents which mostly are missing until yet (and missing by ETHIOPIAN and LIONAIR, ...and HABSHEIM!).
The change must be done at UNO level.to create a other institution, with specific standard.
rh

DrDonkey

2nd Feb 2020, 18:16

Reading between the lines, Calhoun wants to dump (or sideline) the Max and develop an aircraft that he can stand over.

NOC40

2nd Feb 2020, 18:51

Yes, too harsh, especially if his actual comment was "I want to be sure I understand EVERYTHING about the widebody, narrowbody world,"
And TWO segments? You left out helicopters, jet fighters, tankers and their entire Space and Services divisions.

LowObservable

3rd Feb 2020, 11:10

Ian W

3rd Feb 2020, 12:07

The bean counters, and I am not one, are only doing what the shareholders want: to increase the revenues per share, whichever the consequences are.

In all too many cases, this has been overtaken by the desire to increase shareholder value, which is not the same thing. Dividends and buybacks don't increase revenue, but they increase share price while diverting cash that would otherwise be used for internal investment, such as creating soundly engineered new products.

Running a business like Boeing requires that the beancounters go for 'long term greed'. Unfortunately, as with many companies they are aiming at short term greed and end of year bonuses which only puts the company into a spiral dive of continual short term thinking. Long term greed could possibly be enforced by paying management and beancounters in stock options that they can only convert to cash after say 10 years from issue. The management attitudes would change considerably.

BDAttitude

4th Feb 2020, 12:39

Long expected, finally arrived: SEC Investigations
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-confirms-sec-investigating-disclosures-around-737-max/

568

4th Feb 2020, 17:07

Boeing under investigation by SEC regarding MAX.

https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/boeing-confirms-sec-investigating-disclosures-around-737-max

WHBM

4th Feb 2020, 17:50

Boeing doesn't expect Federal Aviation Administration approval of its changes to the plane until mid-year.Is this the first we have seen about "mid-year" now ? KOMO News is the ABC affiliate in Seattle and will be well connected with the situation.

A0283

4th Feb 2020, 18:17

The SEC investigation has been going on for months. Hardly news.

A0283

4th Feb 2020, 18:26

From an industrial point of view it is interesting to find out if this will show parallels with the investigation of Volkswagen (diesel). At face value there are some parallels.

tdracer

4th Feb 2020, 18:28

Is this the first we have seen about "mid-year" now ? KOMO News is the ABC affiliate in Seattle and will be well connected with the situation.
No, they made the 'mid year' announcement last month, as part of the year end results.

WHBM

5th Feb 2020, 08:21

No, they made the 'mid year' announcement last month, as part of the year end results.
I'd missed that. But I'm sure one of the things the SEC will want to look at is the continual reannouncing of return to service expectations, which have consistently been around 4-6 months away ever since the start of the issue, and which are a classic for unjustified bolstering of the stock price. They will want to know the justifications for all the dates, why they have then been consistently missed and extended out, and whether this is regarded as misleading the stockholders.

Ian W

5th Feb 2020, 08:34

I'd missed that. But I'm sure one of the things the SEC will want to look at is the continual reannouncing of return to service expectations, which have consistently been around 4-6 months away ever since the start of the issue, and which are a classic for unjustified bolstering of the stock price. They will want to know the justifications for all the dates, why they have then been consistently missed and extended out, and whether this is regarded as misleading the stockholders.

If each reannouncement is linked to an unforeseen action/decision by the regulator(s) then all that was given was the best information at the time.

BDAttitude

5th Feb 2020, 10:01

The SEC investigation has been going on for months. Hardly news.
Genuie interest: Are there any sources?
It is news to me and I have long been waiting for this, so I'm really intrested when it was first disclosed.

WHBM

5th Feb 2020, 18:51

If each reannouncement is linked to an unforeseen action/decision by the regulator(s) then all that was given was the best information at the time.
Well that is indeed what will be asked for, with evidence for how they arrived at their statement. The SEC have been very patient so far, but once an Investigation is announced a Certain Message is being sent. And their investigating teams are no fools.

Mr Dennis may have to come back to answer a question or two.

FlightlessParrot

5th Feb 2020, 22:24

The SEC investigation has been going on for months. Hardly news.
The Seattle Times article says, in para 2,
Boeing disclosed the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation in a regulatory filing Friday.
So perhaps not old news, except for people who are very inward to Boeing's private affairs.

roulishollandais

8th Feb 2020, 14:14

From an industrial point of view it is interesting to find out if this will show parallels with the investigation of Volkswagen (diesel). At face value there are some parallels.
in the Volkswagen investigation there was only fraud!
in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge. That lack of knowledge is existing by Airbus too, and in the whole aeronautical world including the certification process in use by ICAO :(

Peter H

8th Feb 2020, 17:18

in the Volkswagen investigation there was only fraud!
in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge. That lack of knowledge is existing by Airbus too, and in the whole aeronautical world including the certification process in use by ICAO :( My emphasis.

Can you elaborate on that.

I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").

CurtainTwitcher

9th Feb 2020, 00:37

You are correct Peter H, zero evidence has been released that the MCAS did not function as anticipated. The code was not the problem, the specification itself was the fundamentally flawed for commercial reasons. The name you want to search (this site & google) is Rick Ludkte. By having only a single sensor MCAS, no warning to the pilots was required, no warning means no simulator training, only a one hour iPad course. The risk was further assessed by Boeing as being one below catastrophic, and therefore did not require a crew warning.

Penalties of $1 million per aircraft were agreed by Boeing if simulator training was required for some large orders.

Roddenty

11th Feb 2020, 20:59

Just noticed this audio-video about the 737 Max, by a Boeing insider.
An interesting take on the continuing Max debacle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OzFlqHikUc&t=1634s

Loose rivets

11th Feb 2020, 22:42

Silly boy. Didn't you know all Death Planes have ECAS?

568

11th Feb 2020, 23:02

Just noticed this audio-video about the 737 Max, by a Boeing insider.
An interesting take on the continuing Max debacle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OzFlqHikUc&t=1634s

OK I'll bite.

Viewed some of the video and I don't agree with some of his comments.

The "classic" was before the NG but he seems to think that the NG is a "classic"!
The ECS was redesigned from the panel aspect as was all of the overhead panel, but SW Airlines didn't want the "toggle switches" to go, as this would have meant "training" would have been involved.

The "cigar shaped" engine was in fact the P&W JT8D engines mounted on the 737-100/200 series.
The rudder PCU's were changed for Cat iii operations and so on.

silverstrata

12th Feb 2020, 08:26

OK I'll bite.

Viewed some of the video and I don't agree with some of his comments.
The rudder PCU's were changed for Cat iii operations and so on.

Think you are wrong there. Unlike all other aircraft, the 737 had a single rudder PCU. (A bit like MCAS only using one AoA sensor - you would have thought Boeing would have learned by now that two is the minimum).

The 737 rudder PCU was made into a dual system because of several incidents and two crashes, not because of Cat III operations. Seem to remember that one of those incidents was on a BA 747, which captured the error on data recorders (the 747 used the same PCU for the elevators).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

Silver

ProPax

12th Feb 2020, 09:35

Everyone's now talking about a good CEO for Boeing. Most name Alan Mullaly. But I suddenly have a brilliant idea that Boeing can use for a reasonable fee. Why not Carlos Gosn? He's free. He dug Nissan out of a $20-bln debt hole. He turned that ungrateful company around and put it on the way to prosperity. And he does what Boeing love - cuts costs... without killing the end product.

Why not him? I'm sure Pompeo can settle the corruption charges with Japan. With his boss, he should have some experience in that kind of talking. The only difference this time would be that charges against Gosn are absolutely bogus, which would make Mikey's job all the easier. Are you listening, Boeing?

Twitter

12th Feb 2020, 10:10

According CNN:

...last month new CEO David Calhoun announced that the company is going back to the drawing board on the plane's design.

This refers to the middle range project. Most refreshing, if true.

568

12th Feb 2020, 17:34

Think you are wrong there. Unlike all other aircraft, the 737 had a single rudder PCU. (A bit like MCAS only using one AoA sensor - you would have thought Boeing would have learned by now that two is the minimum).

The 737 rudder PCU was made into a dual system because of several incidents and two crashes, not because of Cat III operations. Seem to remember that one of those incidents was on a BA 747, which captured the error on data recorders (the 747 used the same PCU for the elevators).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

Silver

Yes indeed you are correct and I did remember about the US air and other possible PCU problems I just plain forgot to add this before my brain fart, but thanks anyway
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.

silverstrata

13th Feb 2020, 11:01

Yes indeed you are correct and I did remember about the US air and other possible PCU problems I just plain forgot to add this before my brain fart, but thanks anyway
I believe that the flap tracks on the NG weren't good enough when they first designed because flap 40 position had too much axial movement.

Yes, all the NG flap and slat-tracks had to be replaced, because the bearings had seized.
And now all the pickle-forks should be replaced.
The NG was not as well engineered as the Classic, and the Max even less so.

As an aside, I thought that video was quite accurate, and less sensationalist than the title.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OzFlqHikUc&t=1634s

Silver

up_down_n_out

13th Feb 2020, 18:06

not a single Airbus has ever gone down because of any kind of manufacture design or manufacturing flaw, all accidents are all the pilots fault.

SO you conveniently forgot Mont St Odile which was certainly bean counters at work.

If I remember then the "investigation" as such was so fatefully flawed and the whole justice action so corrupted, nobody ever tried to opportion blame to the real people - who are all probably living a nice retirement in the sun.

As far as I remember the victims got sweet FA after a decade of court action, & Air Inter / Air Frantic got completely exonerated.
:ugh:
Class!

silverstrata

13th Feb 2020, 21:02

SO you conveniently forgot Mont St Odile which was certainly bean counters at work.

As far as I remember the victims got sweet FA after a decade of court action, & Air Inter / Air Frantic got completely exonerated.
:ugh:
Class!

Eh? The pilots chose the wrong descent mode - rate of descent instead of angle of descent.
While you might claim ergonomic deficiencies were involved, and I would probably agree, the aircraft did exactly as it was told.

Silver

up_down_n_out

14th Feb 2020, 13:58

Eh? The pilots chose the wrong descent mode - rate of descent instead of angle of descent.
While you might claim ergonomic deficiencies were involved, ...
Silver

er...and the lack of Balise to locate the plane resulting in most of the survivors freezing to death because it took hours more than neccessary to find it.
Who's decision was this the pilots too??
(bean counters, said it wasn't needed)
And
How come a terrain warning was unable to prevent the plane literally being within 10m altitude height of clearing the top of the mountain (I have been there and visited the site).

In the urge to continue the Airbus v Boeing wars, better to be sure of your facts n'est pas?

Sultan Ismail

14th Feb 2020, 15:50

Balise = Transponder

The Bartender

14th Feb 2020, 16:27

How come a terrain warning was unable to prevent the plane literally being within 10m altitude height of clearing the top of the mountain (I have been there and visited the site).

From Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Inter_Flight_148):

The report also recommended that pilot training for the A320 should be enhanced and that ground proximity warning systems should be installed on them. Air Inter equipped its aircraft with ground proximity warning systems before the investigation was completed.

MELT

14th Feb 2020, 20:06

Think you'll find that the "balise" referred to here means ELT.

ATC Watcher

14th Feb 2020, 21:14

Like in most accidents if not all, the causes of Air Inter Mt St Odile are many , The fact that the ELT did not activate and that the aircraft was not equipped with GPWS did not help but those were not among the causes of the accident. GPWS was not mandatory at the time and it was not as reliable as it is today with lots of false alarms for those who remember . The ergonomic of the button between rate and angle is mentioned as probably one of the causes, the military ATC in place in Strasbourg at the time was another. But read the report in the BEA archives. There is also an interesting book about the rescue operation.

up_down_n_out

15th Feb 2020, 02:53

Like in most accidents if not all, the causes of Air Inter Mt St Odile are many ,

Yes the point I was making, bean counters were the ones that "caused" this catastrophe, because the reasons for the absence of many of the "normal" air frantic equipment being absent were those of "economy" just like the choice of using an inferior AOA pitot resulted in the eventual downing of another perfectly airworthy Airbus AF447.

In both cases the choice between life and death were decided by faceless committees in offices far away from the tragedies, and those responsible have a happy retirement... oh and btw it was Airbus was also responsible for Concorde, and deliberately vandalised the future of the (also perfectly airworthy) British version of it.

In their efforts to save face, all sorts of strange manouevres go on behind the scenes, and it doesn't look better than Boeing.
If in doubt, blame the pilot,is the official way around it.

PerPurumTonantes

15th Feb 2020, 07:29

... just like the choice of using an inferior AOA pitot resulted in the eventual downing of another perfectly airworthy Airbus AF447.

Not going to go into AF447 yet again here. If your opinion is that this was the main cause then I suggest you have a look at the evidence again.

DaveReidUK

15th Feb 2020, 08:23

Not going to go into AF447 yet again here. If your opinion is that this was the main cause then I suggest you have a look at the evidence again.

You are unlikely ever to see the expression "main cause" in any accident investigation report. Nor is it in the post you quoted.

All you can reasonably say is that obstruction of the pitot probes by ice crystals was the first stage in a chain of events, all of which in combination resulted in the eventual outcome. Much like the previous poster said ...

Bidule

16th Feb 2020, 15:53

Yes the point I was making, bean counters were the ones that "caused" this catastrophe,

The decision not to have GPWS was not made by bean counters but by the Air Inter operational management (as well as some pilots).....

.

roulishollandais

19th Feb 2020, 15:22

My emphasis.

Can you elaborate on that.

I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").
Sorry Peter H,
ther is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....
rh..

Peter H

19th Feb 2020, 17:18

>Originally Posted by roulishollandais View Post (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/629283-boeing-posts-first-loss-two-decades-737-max-costs-double-3.html#post10682662)
>in the Volkswagen investigation there was only fraud!
>in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge. That lack of knowledge is existing by Airbus too,
>and in the whole aeronautical world including the certification process in use by ICAO https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif
>
>Peter H Can you elaborate on that.
>I understood that MCAS-1 (before the grounding) performed as-per-specification (with the pilots expected to catch the "trim-runaway").

>roulishollandais Sorry Peter H,
>there is not enough place in these threads; specification in not everything....

I requested an elaboration of your original cryptic post, I think there should be space in the thread for that.

My one-liner was simply to emphasise that the software implementation team seem to be totally in the clear.
They correctly implemented software conforming to the specification they were give. A specification that had
passed all Boeing QC checks, including a full safety assessment (which specifically considered AoA failure).

So can you elaborate, not about specifications, by why "in the Max crash the origin is not the fraud but a lack of computer knowledge."
Who failed to understand what about computers, and with what consequences?
... I'm just trying to understand what you meant.