Bloomberg Report: Boeing Mocked Lion Air Calls for More 737 Max Training Before Crash
......... that the problem we're discussing is actually quite localized; it was Boeing Co that designed and produced the flawed airliner and FAA that didn't stop it from going into service. Not Tupolev and Rosaviyatsia. Not Embraer and ANAC. Not Bombardier and TCCA and especially not Airbus and EASA.
Never has there been a better case of "There by the Grace of (insert your own religious/other Deity) go I!". "Finance" is "finance", "humans" are "humans", "CEOs" are "CEOs" (even some CEOs are human .... well, almost!), "Regulators" are "Regulators" and "Customers" are "Customers". After years of working in various capacities, in various organisations dealing with various outside stakeholders, what has struck me are the similarities in so many organisations and business relationships. Mainly because humans are involved!
I've done things in the past and then gone "WTF?" when I've suddenly paused and thought a bit more about what I have just done. I've also seen countless cases where others have done things and, when queried, gone "What's wrong with that?" and got a bit "huffy" with H 'n' H or whoever brings up the question. These can often be senior, experienced folk who know better going and doing something daft.
The checks we build in to doing whatever it is in Aviation are there for one reason, to pick up when someone slips up. But even that is not foolproof and things slip through the net, particularly if all involved in the QA process are subjected to the same pressures. Not every error which gets through the system leads to an accident/incident and so they just sit there, un-noticed. Others................!
Just an observation! On reflection tho, I guess, to an extent, you are correct Clandestino - it is localised. Localised to where us human beings are involved!
Cheers, H 'n' H
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This time it was the bizarre coincidence of two disparate faults that exposed the fallibility of the single sensor, but that's 'all' it was. Hard to say the word, but that's all it was. But it opened the can. What is so hard to visualise is just how different the lives of thousands would be if two small components hadn't failed. Is it possible that an airliner can be produced that could self correct issues and always fail safe? I think we could possibly get close to that in twenty years, but not while the free world model of competition is allowed to eat at the moral fabric of corporations. The two just don't go together. Aviation a special case? It won't happen. You don't have to search long for far greater disregard for human life, and that's getting worse by the patent.
No MAX for me .....
Thread Starter
Law, Ethics, & Consequences
Edmund had made an interesting point previously, that the corporate world, indeed the world at large is interested in the consequences of liability arising from breaches of the law. That is quite true. It doesn't however give a free pass to corporations for their actions, when they breach ethical guidelines, which are few and far between. At the end of the line, a moral objection to the action of a corporation appears toothless, except for a couple of items. In a deliberation in a jury room, morality is often more important than any code, either legal or ethical. The decision often comes down to what is reasonable, to the great unwashed public, the pool from which a jury is drawn. Therein lies justice. Where a corporation offends the sensibility of the public, or their customers, and where there is a choice available, pain may occur to the bottom line.
I have little faith in corporate entities ethics, and the law is an ass. However, I have observed 12 individuals gain consensus on what is right or wrong. Assuming that a government instrumentality will sort out problems historically has a poor record, no matter what the persuasion of the system, capitalistic, socialist or communist.
Edmund had made an interesting point previously, that the corporate world, indeed the world at large is interested in the consequences of liability arising from breaches of the law. That is quite true. It doesn't however give a free pass to corporations for their actions, when they breach ethical guidelines, which are few and far between. At the end of the line, a moral objection to the action of a corporation appears toothless, except for a couple of items. In a deliberation in a jury room, morality is often more important than any code, either legal or ethical. The decision often comes down to what is reasonable, to the great unwashed public, the pool from which a jury is drawn. Therein lies justice. Where a corporation offends the sensibility of the public, or their customers, and where there is a choice available, pain may occur to the bottom line.
I have little faith in corporate entities ethics, and the law is an ass. However, I have observed 12 individuals gain consensus on what is right or wrong. Assuming that a government instrumentality will sort out problems historically has a poor record, no matter what the persuasion of the system, capitalistic, socialist or communist.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots v Union v Boeing
Boeing pilot union decertification vote postponed as SPEEA files charge
Jan. 16, 2020 at 6:00 amBy
Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
A vote to decide if a small group of Boeing safety and flight-training pilots in the Seattle area will leave their union has been postponed, pending an investigation into a union charge that Boeing violated labor laws and manipulated its members.
In an email Friday, the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) said the case will be held “in abeyance” while it investigates an unfair-labor-practice charge filed by Boeing’s white-collar union, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA).
This is the second contentious effort among Boeing pilots to oust the union. It follows a 2016 decertification drive that involved Mark Forkner and Patrik Gustavsson, pilots whose exchanges regarding the 737 MAX provoked widespread outrage when revealed recently.
Although about 20 out of the group of 29 pilots signed a petition for a vote to get rid of the union, SPEEA alleges the process has been tainted by management actions.
It charges that Boeing offered large pay raises only to nonunion pilots late last year, and promised a 25% pay raise to the union pilots if they decertify.
Boeing denies that. Company spokesman Paul Bergman said the petition to leave the union “was not initiated, requested or encouraged by Boeing management.”
This group of technical and safety pilots work on developing training materials and qualifying simulators for airline pilots. It was unionized by SPEEA only in 2012.
The union also alleges that the bargaining unit has dwindled because Boeing has taken work away from the group — first by eliminating 38 jobs when it transferred Boeing’s flight-simulator-training facilities from the Puget Sound region to Miami in 2013, and then by hiring nonunion contract pilots to fill jobs anytime union pilots left.
The union charges also that the group’s safety pilots, who would normally participate in air-accident investigations to determine if the pilots flying the plane had followed procedures, were excluded from the two 737 MAX crash investigations.
Ray Goforth, executive director of SPEEA, said he expects to testify next week in an NLRB hearing to consider the union’s charges.
The previous unsuccessful drive to decertify the union in 2016 was formally filed by Gustavsson and supported by Forkner, among others. Forkner was then 737 chief technical pilot. When Forkner left Boeing in 2018, Gustavsson replaced him as 737 chief technical pilot.
Their exchanges related to early development of the 737 MAX were revealed in two troves of documents released in October and last week. The conversations included crude, derogatory banter about air-safety-authority officials, Boeing airline customers and colleagues within Boeing.
They also laid out more serious revelations. For example, more than a year before the crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018, Forkner pushed hard to dissuade the airline and the Indonesian air-safety regulator from requiring their pilots to have simulator training on the MAX before flying it. He convinced Lion Air that only a short computer course was needed.
That work features in SPEEA’s charges against Boeing. Goforth said that Boeing rewarded anti-union activists, including Forkner and Gustavsson, with “unwarranted promotions” that included significant pay raises.
Forkner now flies for Southwest Airlines. Gustavsson is still at Boeing but no longer in the union. Neither pilot responded to messages asking for comment.
Goforth said he’s heard the core issue for the current SPEEA pilots is the lack of a pay raise. The union has given management a contract proposal including a salary hike but hasn’t yet had a response.
He said the SPEEA pilots “have been watching their bargaining unit whittle away and lose work. I can understand their frustration.”
The pilots at the center of this dispute will play a key role when the 737 MAX returns to service.
Boeing has switched its position to recommend full-flight simulator training for airline pilots before they fly the MAX again. Many airlines will need Boeing’s help to put their pilots through such a training regimen. In addition, Boeing will need a large number of both instructor pilots and pilots able to conduct flight tests and fly customer-demo flights.
Last edited by Grebe; 16th Jan 2020 at 14:35. Reason: spacing
Pay-outs in whatever form they may come have to be limited & under no circumstance should interested parties be handed the golden chute while the aircraft is going down - it should be quite the opposite.
The opposite of this nonsense has generally been the way that successful small, medium businesses have been working since the dawn of time - provide a good product at a reasonable price while trying to create a good reputation & provide a secure future. The old statement "taking care of business" has been utterly forgotten in many large organisations with pay-out trumping all at any cost. It's all very sad.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toulouse
Age: 63
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing pilot union decertification vote postponed as SPEEA files charge
Jan. 16, 2020 at 6:00 amBy
Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
<snip>
The previous unsuccessful drive to decertify the union in 2016 was formally filed by Gustavsson and supported by Forkner, among others. Forkner was then 737 chief technical pilot. When Forkner left Boeing in 2018, Gustavsson replaced him as 737 chief technical pilot.
<snip>
What an amazing coincidence! I've seen these names before... These two apparently working to break the union and also the only ones who wrote dodgy e-mails... or the management boys got a hatchet in the back!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The professionals on Pprune tend to have an exceptionally low view of passengers. We are not all drunken morons looking for the cheapest fare. I am on Pprune: I also know average travellers who are not on Pprune who do from time to time think about the aircraft they fly on. Obviously people are not going to "stop flying on Boeings"; but it is also not true to say that all travellers are unaware of the aircraft they fly.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People in the corporate world have been around for so long they can't see the forest for the trees:
- In olden days the owners of a company were financially and criminally responsible for its behavior. It got sued, the owners were liable.
- then the Limited Responsibility Company (LLC or LTD) was invented, isolating Acme LTD stockholders financially from misbehavior by Acme.
- also, managers at a company take any criminal blame, owners are not implicated in misdeeds.
At this point, the only real limitation to corporate unethical behavior was that a company could still go bust. But then Bush/Obama promulgated the too big to fail doctrine, which ensured that huge companies that went bust because of reckless working ethics would not be nationalised but just bailed out.
Let's skip ahead a bit - you don't need to be a genius to see that Boeing's employees were willingly and knowingly skimping on safety for the 737 because of management pressures, that the FAA was fully cognizant of these pressures, and that management and employees were well rewarded for their profit maximising.
It's time to call a spade a spade - corporate ethics is an oxymoron. The referee is wearing a blindfold, and the maximum penalty is that play gets stopped for a minute.
Edmund
- In olden days the owners of a company were financially and criminally responsible for its behavior. It got sued, the owners were liable.
- then the Limited Responsibility Company (LLC or LTD) was invented, isolating Acme LTD stockholders financially from misbehavior by Acme.
- also, managers at a company take any criminal blame, owners are not implicated in misdeeds.
At this point, the only real limitation to corporate unethical behavior was that a company could still go bust. But then Bush/Obama promulgated the too big to fail doctrine, which ensured that huge companies that went bust because of reckless working ethics would not be nationalised but just bailed out.
Let's skip ahead a bit - you don't need to be a genius to see that Boeing's employees were willingly and knowingly skimping on safety for the 737 because of management pressures, that the FAA was fully cognizant of these pressures, and that management and employees were well rewarded for their profit maximising.
It's time to call a spade a spade - corporate ethics is an oxymoron. The referee is wearing a blindfold, and the maximum penalty is that play gets stopped for a minute.
Edmund
Law, Ethics, & Consequences
Edmund had made an interesting point previously, that the corporate world, indeed the world at large is interested in the consequences of liability arising from breaches of the law. That is quite true. It doesn't however give a free pass to corporations for their actions, when they breach ethical guidelines, which are few and far between. At the end of the line, a moral objection to the action of a corporation appears toothless, except for a couple of items. In a deliberation in a jury room, morality is often more important than any code, either legal or ethical. The decision often comes down to what is reasonable, to the great unwashed public, the pool from which a jury is drawn. Therein lies justice. Where a corporation offends the sensibility of the public, or their customers, and where there is a choice available, pain may occur to the bottom line.
I have little faith in corporate entities ethics, and the law is an ass. However, I have observed 12 individuals gain consensus on what is right or wrong. Assuming that a government instrumentality will sort out problems historically has a poor record, no matter what the persuasion of the system, capitalistic, socialist or communist.
Edmund had made an interesting point previously, that the corporate world, indeed the world at large is interested in the consequences of liability arising from breaches of the law. That is quite true. It doesn't however give a free pass to corporations for their actions, when they breach ethical guidelines, which are few and far between. At the end of the line, a moral objection to the action of a corporation appears toothless, except for a couple of items. In a deliberation in a jury room, morality is often more important than any code, either legal or ethical. The decision often comes down to what is reasonable, to the great unwashed public, the pool from which a jury is drawn. Therein lies justice. Where a corporation offends the sensibility of the public, or their customers, and where there is a choice available, pain may occur to the bottom line.
I have little faith in corporate entities ethics, and the law is an ass. However, I have observed 12 individuals gain consensus on what is right or wrong. Assuming that a government instrumentality will sort out problems historically has a poor record, no matter what the persuasion of the system, capitalistic, socialist or communist.
Last edited by edmundronald; 17th Jan 2020 at 05:09.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an appalling slander against the vast majority of Boeing employees who are decent, honest, professional and conscientious!
The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.
For shame.
The extremeness of some outside views brought about by this sorry business are far, far less edifying even than some of the balls-ups made by various players within it.
It is grotesquely, outrageously unfair to publish such totalitarian accusations that you cannot possibly substantiate and which attack and belittle every single Boeing employee, just as much as it is the ultimate in spite and vindictiveness against them to whip up a Salem-witch-hunt-like frenzy against their company to see it destroyed due to the poor decisions of a few, probably very few indeed, of their colleagues.
For shame.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ed-737-max-jet
Technology
New Software Flaw Could Further Delay Boeing’s 737 Max
By Alan Levin
January 17, 2020, 2:03 PM EST Updated on January 17, 2020, 2:36 PM EST
The company has alerted the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and is notifying customers and its suppliers about the issue, it said in an emailed statement. Boeing’s best-selling jet was grounded on March 13 after two fatal crashes involving a flight-control system.
The issue involves how a software system on the plane checks to ensure that data it is receiving from other monitors are functioning properly, said a person familiar with the issue who wasn’t authorized to speak about it. The issue occurs when the system is initially powered up, the person said.
“We are making necessary updates and working with the FAA on submission of this change, and keeping our customers and suppliers informed,” Boeing said in its statement. “Our highest priority is ensuring the 737 MAX is safe and meets all regulatory requirements before it returns to service.”
News of the software flaw sent Boeing shares down as far as $323, less than $3 from their closing low after the second Max crash. The stock dropped 2.3% to $324.30 at 2:57 p.m. in New York.
The FAA didn’t comment on the latest issue to arise on the problem-plagued plane. “We won’t approve the plane for return to service until it’s ready,” the agency said in an emailed statement.
The 737 Max is costing the planemaker billions in losses. The software problem was discovered during the final validation review process of the software updates being installed on the plane, the person said.
It’s unclear how complex the repair will be. Software systems on aircraft require a far higher degree of reliability and checks before approval compared to consumer products.
Boeing has been working for more than a year on fixing software to ensure that a flight-control system that pushes down the nose automatically -- and was linked to both fatal crashes -- is safe.
During the process of assessing the plane last year, Boeing discovered another issue and had to redesign its flight-control computers. The reworking of that software has been one of the reasons that the repairs have taken so long.
The crash of a Lion Air 737 Max on Oct. 29, 2018, and an Ethiopian Airlines plane on March 10 both occurred after a system known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System repeatedly pushed the planes into dives. Pilots in both cases were able to temporarily maintain control, but eventually the jets entered steep dives and crashed.
(Updates with details about issue starting in third paragraph)
New Software Flaw Could Further Delay Boeing’s 737 Max
By Alan Levin
January 17, 2020, 2:03 PM EST Updated on January 17, 2020, 2:36 PM EST
- Boeing says in statement it’s working with FAA on the issue
- Software problem is latest to hit plane grounded since March
The company has alerted the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and is notifying customers and its suppliers about the issue, it said in an emailed statement. Boeing’s best-selling jet was grounded on March 13 after two fatal crashes involving a flight-control system.
The issue involves how a software system on the plane checks to ensure that data it is receiving from other monitors are functioning properly, said a person familiar with the issue who wasn’t authorized to speak about it. The issue occurs when the system is initially powered up, the person said.
“We are making necessary updates and working with the FAA on submission of this change, and keeping our customers and suppliers informed,” Boeing said in its statement. “Our highest priority is ensuring the 737 MAX is safe and meets all regulatory requirements before it returns to service.”
News of the software flaw sent Boeing shares down as far as $323, less than $3 from their closing low after the second Max crash. The stock dropped 2.3% to $324.30 at 2:57 p.m. in New York.
The FAA didn’t comment on the latest issue to arise on the problem-plagued plane. “We won’t approve the plane for return to service until it’s ready,” the agency said in an emailed statement.
The 737 Max is costing the planemaker billions in losses. The software problem was discovered during the final validation review process of the software updates being installed on the plane, the person said.
It’s unclear how complex the repair will be. Software systems on aircraft require a far higher degree of reliability and checks before approval compared to consumer products.
Boeing has been working for more than a year on fixing software to ensure that a flight-control system that pushes down the nose automatically -- and was linked to both fatal crashes -- is safe.
During the process of assessing the plane last year, Boeing discovered another issue and had to redesign its flight-control computers. The reworking of that software has been one of the reasons that the repairs have taken so long.
The crash of a Lion Air 737 Max on Oct. 29, 2018, and an Ethiopian Airlines plane on March 10 both occurred after a system known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System repeatedly pushed the planes into dives. Pilots in both cases were able to temporarily maintain control, but eventually the jets entered steep dives and crashed.
(Updates with details about issue starting in third paragraph)
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue involves how a software system on the plane checks to ensure that data it is receiving from other monitors are functioning properly, said a person familiar with the issue who wasn’t authorized to speak about it. The issue occurs when the system is initially powered up, the person said.
Sounds like it might possibly be the dreaded dual-FMC crosscheck. "You're wrong." "No, YOU'RE wrong."
Last edited by Takwis; 17th Jan 2020 at 21:34.
The Bloomberg article has been rewritten - which is fine as much of the original quote makes no sense.
For one of several examples: "The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it’s receiving valid data" instead of "monitors" and whatnot.
For one of several examples: "The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it’s receiving valid data" instead of "monitors" and whatnot.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another translation (from the WSJ): "Boeing Co. said it is grappling with a new software problem before its 737 MAX aircraft can return to service, one that industry and government officials said prevents the jet’s flight-control computers from powering up as required prior to flight."
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to talk about other companies and their ways, even "insulting" some of the desicions they request.
Usually these "insults" are kept within a company, and depending on the situation forgotten about rather quickly.
Bringing them forward, like it is done now, seems more like a witch-hunt than anything else.
I'm not gonna protect Boeing, or other companies for that matter. But think about how you speak of other companies/people when you think it's "confidential".... or even about some of the posts that are thrown up on this forum.
Usually these "insults" are kept within a company, and depending on the situation forgotten about rather quickly.
Bringing them forward, like it is done now, seems more like a witch-hunt than anything else.
I'm not gonna protect Boeing, or other companies for that matter. But think about how you speak of other companies/people when you think it's "confidential".... or even about some of the posts that are thrown up on this forum.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Grand Turk
Age: 61
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that some of the best people still work at Boeing. Unfortunately, both their employees and their customers have been let down by poor and apparently reckless management. Boeing can be a great company again, but it must take radical action to reform its management and come squeaky clean to do so. Customer confidence, including the flying public, are vital to the future of Boeing. I am pretty sure that the flying public will simply avoid the Max or rebadged derivatives, regardless of any assurances. The merits or flogging a dead horse come to mind.
It is difficult to see how Boeing can move forward without culling the Max and the senior staff responsible for it. I suspect that the Max will never gain sufficient confidence to ever be commercially viable, regardless of whether it gains regulatory approvals and resolves the underlying design difficulties. It is not the first time in aviation history that this has happened. I suspect the future of Boeing requires a new aircraft to replace the 737 sector/s. To do otherwise will leave Boeing mired in bad publicity and reduced general confidence for the foreseeable future. It is time for the new CEO to make some difficult decisions that may not be to the liking to many shorter term investors and shareholders.
It is difficult to see how Boeing can move forward without culling the Max and the senior staff responsible for it. I suspect that the Max will never gain sufficient confidence to ever be commercially viable, regardless of whether it gains regulatory approvals and resolves the underlying design difficulties. It is not the first time in aviation history that this has happened. I suspect the future of Boeing requires a new aircraft to replace the 737 sector/s. To do otherwise will leave Boeing mired in bad publicity and reduced general confidence for the foreseeable future. It is time for the new CEO to make some difficult decisions that may not be to the liking to many shorter term investors and shareholders.
Thread Starter
…………. no idea that it had been flying for three years …………..
R Guy[/QUOTE]
Just a small correction
The plane certified March 2017 and first commercial flight was in May 22 2017 and the first crash was 17 months later in October 2018 and grounded in March 2019. Never certified and flew commercially anything like 3 years. this is a myth I see regularly stated.
I have no doubt it will be back in the air again, when may be a question, and the vast majority of people will have no idea nor decide what they are flying on. Another serious incident though and that may change. Personally I am very choosey on airlines and type I use but I think this will be so vetted it will be safest 737 ever
R Guy[/QUOTE]
Just a small correction
The plane certified March 2017 and first commercial flight was in May 22 2017 and the first crash was 17 months later in October 2018 and grounded in March 2019. Never certified and flew commercially anything like 3 years. this is a myth I see regularly stated.
I have no doubt it will be back in the air again, when may be a question, and the vast majority of people will have no idea nor decide what they are flying on. Another serious incident though and that may change. Personally I am very choosey on airlines and type I use but I think this will be so vetted it will be safest 737 ever
Thread Starter
FWIW, post the revelation of the issue, I have no objection to being a passenger or a Captain on the MAX. The amendment of the design logic is necessary for compliance and to restore the confidence of the public in the aircraft, but the basic problem was a design "feature" that was undisclosed that would place the aircraft in a compromised condition where recognition and response was compromised by the lack fo knowledge of the design and the associated "design features" of the 737, like manual trim constraints. With full disclosure, the issue is now fairly well comprehended by all concerned, and would be manageable in the "as was" condition. Annunciating the function failure, and removing single points of failure should put this issue to bed fully as a bad memory of a good company dropping the ball. Nothing will assuage the loss of 346 lives and the countless family members devastated by this saga, but the aircraft can be an effective design for the future. SLF should not be overly biased against the design. The manufacturer may well only have one chance to keep the faith, they better not blow it, which includes changing the spots of the corporate attitude towards its own staff. Would be happy to see that happen and the company succeed. Balls in the shareholders and workers court, are you guys happy with what has been done with your company?
