|
The facts
Expanding: I am probably the only person on this forum who worked closely with every executive mentioned here and in this very dubious article. All of them were dedicated people who wanted to maintain Boeing’s commitment to excellence. To sideline them as avaricious people putting profit and personal gain before safety is insane. What possible reason could they have to do this? Most of them graduated the hard way, through years of gruelling work. They were and are great people. To have a bunch of pilots who know zero about running huge corporations to denigrate them on this forum is disgusting. Plus, it’s an insult to the many guys and girls on the shop floor who build your aircraft. I know many of them and they are probably as mad as I am about the ongoing Boeing-bashing on this forum. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. |
Do you reckon they are as mad as the surviving family members who’ve had their relatives smashed into the ground by poorly designed, corruptly certificated, out of date airliners? |
Human factors
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
(Post 10626010)
Do you reckon they are as mad as the surviving family members who’ve had their relatives smashed into the ground by poorly designed, corruptly certificated, out of date airliners? |
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
(Post 10626010)
Do you reckon they are as mad as the surviving family members who’ve had their relatives smashed into the ground by poorly designed, corruptly certificated, out of date airliners?
But, sadly, entirely factually correct. |
Originally Posted by pittsspecialguy
(Post 10625994)
They were and are great people. To have a bunch of pilots who know zero about running huge corporations to denigrate them on this forum is disgusting. Plus, it’s an insult to the many guys and girls on the shop floor who build your aircraft. I know many of them and they are probably as mad as I am about the ongoing Boeing-bashing on this forum. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. How emotional from a supposed top brass airplane company runner... Pittsspecialguy, have you watched Dennis Muilenburg's hearings some weeks ago ? Are you sure he appeared as an example of a "great person" ? If you really are what you claim you are, would you care to give some examples of what makes him and his partners greater than what they seem to appear ? Guys and girls on the shop floor are certainly mostly great people. Nevertheless I feel uneasy about those FOD, tools, etc. left behind in an airplane. And BTW, what makes you think everyone here might be ignorant of airplane design ? |
@pitts, of course, nobody wanted these disasters to happen, and I hope that the managers you know genuinely thought the system (MCAS) would work safely.
But: A system with autonomous authority to move an extremely important flight control is added but not documented. There is apparently no way in the cockpit to switch it off. The system relies on the data from a single sensor. There seems to be no way of the system self-detecting a fault? The software changes were written by 3rd parties with no core experience of the original software code, and none of the original software writers were consulted. The AoA disagree warning light is an extra cost option. The hand THS trim wheels are smaller, increasing the human mechanical effort required to turn them manually. (Please correct me if any of these assertions are wrong). With the best will in the world, this was surely poor management?, whatever the reasons for it were. And I for one cannot understand why such a pioneering and respected aircraft designer and manufacturer, such as Boeing, could have got themselves into this situation. |
My reply
First, it’s Denis Muilenburg. Check your spelling. And yes, I worked with him and all CEOs back to 2000. PM me for proof. If he was sub-standard in his presentations, I can tell you that it was probably because he was just downright, old fashioned nervous. He’s an old—school guy and does not like PR spin. He tried his best. Even CEOs are not super-heroes and I doubt if he would want to gloss over anything. He’s too honest. I am convinced that he and Stan Deal will help to recover Boeing. They are decent human beings. Second, I am not going to apologise for emotional language about a company I love. What especially grates with me is the commentary on this board that ultimately would affect thousands of blue collar workers who put their hearts and souls into building your aircraft. I am not going to comment on tools etc. Because I am honest enough to say I know nothing on this. Third, I made little comments re airplane design. I referred to pilots commenting on how to run a huge corporation. You guys run your office well. So how about a bigger office? The only pilot I know who now runs a corporation is Willle Walsh. So how about it guys, what’s your comment on that and let’s imagine you are now CEO of Boeing. What would you do next? — cue silence or do you all have the cojones to reply that one?! |
I can’t answer your question but I really appreciate the sensible and measured reply. |
Originally Posted by pittsspecialguy
(Post 10626077)
First, it’s Denis Muilenburg. Check your spelling. Thank you sir for taking care of my spelling.
Originally Posted by pittsspecialguy
(Post 10626077)
So how about it guys, what’s your comment on that and let’s imagine you are now CEO of Boeing. What would you do next? — cue silence or do you all have the cojones to reply that one?!
When asked if I was working for free like the Japanese would do, I suppose I would have answered that it had been the case for months. Salary as well as bonuses... |
If I'd be the Boeing CEO I'd start the next narrowbody development program ASAP.
|
Yes, totally right,instead of further 737 manipulations they should have concentrated on a new airframe. 1 point to you ! |
I think I was being assertive but not offensive. If I offended you then I apologise. |
Originally Posted by DingerX
(Post 10625937)
This is already a classic study. The engineers are handed a series of hard parameters and told to come up with something. Their solution is brilliant: develop a system by tapping into an existing system; normally, this would cause a huge problem, since the existing system wasn't built for that, and, in effect, you're relying on a single sensor input to move a secondary flight control, but, hey, with small adjustments that can easily be overridden manually and countered by primary flight controls, that's not a problem. So it passes the regulatory hurdle. Then in testing, surprise surprise, we're going to need more authority. Well, you know safety, in for a dime, in for a dollar..
1. MCAS was an existing system taken from another aircraft (KC-46) - this meant it did not need to be certified as "new or novel" (see JATR). 2. That existing system had dual AOA input. 3. Even after they removed the other AOA input, it was still not single-sensor dependent because it was triggered on both AOA and g conditions. 4. It wasn't just "more authority" required after flight testing, it was also removal of the g sensor condition 5. Don't forget, after removing the g condition, and increasing the authority of the system, don't bother reviewing the safety case for the system in case you turn up anything that might impact schedule... As to "who did this" I'd start with those who said this design would fly right except in wind-up turns, way before it was actually built, and then those who said nothing when flight tests showed it didn't - that was the moment the cord should have been pulled and the whole program reviewed to determine (a) how we got it wrong (b) what else we might have got wrong knowing (a) and (c) how do we fix it properly (not just whack up the gain and remove a sensor from an existing system and call it safe because it was assessed as safe before). Six months delay to the MAX wouldn't have hurt anywhere near as bad as what's happened since. |
Originally Posted by pittsspecialguy
(Post 10626109)
I think I was being assertive but not offensive. If I offended you then I apologise. Maybe a little too assertive for certain cultures, but it's OK ;-) As instructed, checked Boeing's CEO's name spelling First, it’s Denis Muilenburg |
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
(Post 10626119)
1. MCAS was an existing system taken from another aircraft (KC-46) - this meant it did not need to be certified as "new or novel" (see JATR).
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10626097)
If I'd be the Boeing CEO I'd start the next narrowbody development program ASAP.
Bit of stretching and squeezing and we'll soon have the E2 (or whatever we call it - E-Max?) with enough seats to cover most of 737 market, it's also FBW from the start so no flight control problems from changes, oh, and it has yokes not sidesticks which is good, sidesticks would damage our image and credibility, retrofitting yokes would have been expensive. With an updated, and slightly down-sized, narrowbody option we should have room for a New Midsized Aircraft, maybe, if we can afford to design it, and if we can build it to a price that competes with A321 but doesn't take 787 sales. That is the tough call. |
One n two n's burg or berg, the major blame towards him, as occured in his tenure - besides being a follower of the predominant sharholder value cult - should be in the way how the grounding was handled:
|
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt
(Post 10626136)
Didn't we hear somewhere that the KC-46 MCAS was totally different from that of the MAX, apart from the name ?
|
What would you do next?
I would give up most of my ill received billion dollars to a good cause. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10625159)
It was quite telling that Condit was the first Boeing CEO to overtly focus on the perks of the job.
I recommend having a read of the links that CurtainTwitcher posted above. Here they are again - https://www.epsilontheory.com/yeah-its-still-water/ "... they’re not founders like Gates or Bezos. They’re not investors like Buffett or Dalio. They’re management. And now they’re billionaires. And all their captains and lesser brethren are centimillionaires. And all their lieutenants and subalterns are decamillionaires. And everyone is perfectly fine with this. No one even notices that this is happening or that it’s different or that it’s a sea change in how we organize wealth in our society. It’s not good or bad or deserved or undeserved. It just IS." https://www.epsilontheory.com/when-w...oeing-edition/ Still not through my bull****-o-meter but I have read a few articles and it looks OK so far. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.