Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Boeing in 'safety cover-up' - Documentary on Al Jazeera

Old 2nd Jan 2011, 18:28
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
John writes:
The Last Inspector - Boeing Fraud & FAA Fraud Risking Safety

What is it with all these Americans with anti-Boeing agendas, that all seem to major in "horsepucky"?
One hardly knows what to make of that website. What with the quotes from Mary Schiavo and all...


Which aren't nearly as good as some of the things Mr. Gerald Eastman - this Gerald Eastman - himself has written:
When I was a mechanic or inspector on the 777, I would choose my passwords based on species of dinosaurs, silently voicing my belief that the 777, the plane that everyone was so excited about, as it was a "totally new airplane," was only a 767 that the engineers had put the design of in a Catia terminal, and pushed the "enlarge" key. Sure, a lot of new technology was introduced in areas on the 777, but the design was pretty much the same. Airbus copied this same ancient Boeing design in their A/Ps. It was nothing new and exciting like the B-2 was when I worked on it, or the Sonic Cruiser will be.
It's on this page. Then search for "6-5-07 quote:" and have fun.

As so often is the case, this is a missed diagnosis.

He's not a "whistle-blower," he's merely suffering priapism.


Barking writes:
Doubters of the behaviour of Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas or whatever they´re calling themselves this year might like to obtain a copy of "Destination Disaster-The Rise and Fall of the DC-10" or carry out appropriate web research.
It was purely and completely McDonnell-Douglas at that time. Boeing had not purchased them yet.

Also, even though the disaster does indicate that the frame in question should have had the upgrades in place to prevent the cargo door from opening, there is this:
Mohammed Mahmoudi, the baggage handler who had closed the door on Flight 981, noted that no particular amount of force was needed to close the locking handle. Investigators concluded that the system had already been fatigued in prior flights.

The fix that was implemented by McDonnell Douglas after the American Airlines flight 96 incident was the addition of a small window that allowed the baggage handlers to visually inspect the pins, confirming they were in the correct position, and placards were added to inform them of proper operation. This modification had been carried out on TC-JAV. However, Mahmoudi had not been advised as to what the indicator window was for. He had been told that as long as the door latch handle stowed correctly and the vent flap closed at the same time, the door was safe. Furthermore, the instructions regarding the indicator window were posted on the aircraft in English and Turkish, but the Algerian-born Mahmoudi, who could read and write three languages fluently, could not read either language.
source: Turkish Airlines Flight 981


Cheers!

Last edited by rottenray; 2nd Jan 2011 at 18:42.
rottenray is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2011, 21:08
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Cool

Hi,

From the same link above (The Wikipedia one) this is more on topic

The latch of the DC-10 is a study in human factors, interface design and engineering responsibility. The control cables for the rear control surfaces of the DC-10 are routed under the floor, so a failure of the hatch could lead to the collapse of the floor, and disruption of the controls. To make matters worse, Douglas chose a new latch design to seal the cargo hatch. If the hatch were to fail for any reason, there was a very high probability the plane would be lost. This possibility was first discovered in 1969 and actually occurred in 1970 in a ground test. Nevertheless, nothing was done to change the design, presumably because the cost for any such changes would have been borne as out-of-pocket expenses by the fuselage's sub-contractor, Convair. Although Convair had informed McDonnell Douglas of the potential problem, rectifying what the airline considered a small problem with a low probability of occurrence would have seriously disrupted delivery of the aircraft and cost sales so Convair's concerns were ignored. Dan Applegate was Director of Product Engineering at Convair at the time. His serious reservations about the integrity of the DC-10's cargo latching mechanism are considered a classic case in the field of engineering ethics.
After Flight 981, a complete re-design of the latching system was finally implemented. The latches themselves were re-designed to prevent them from moving into the wrong positions in the first place. The locking system was mechanically upgraded to prevent the handle from being able to be forced closed without the pins in place, and the vent door operation was changed to be operated by the pins, so that it would properly indicate that the pins were in the locked position, not that the handle was. Additionally, the FAA ordered further changes to all aircraft with outward-opening doors, including the DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, and Boeing 747, requiring that vents be cut into the cabin floor to allow pressures to equalize in the event of a blown-out door.
The name given to the crashed DC-10, "Ankara", is still used on an Airbus A340-300 (TC-JDL, MSN: 57) in Star Alliance Livery.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 12:46
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 940
Derg states: Yes you said it they are experienced "engineers". Well I guess where they come from, they get the license to ptactice from a different engineering body than we do here in the UK.

We, UK chartered engineers, swear an oath never to endanger life. Basically this means that you WALK AWAY from an enterprise that is taking serious with the safety of the public. Please note THE PUBLIC.

Calculated risks for enterprises such as the military has another set of rules. Nuclear installations are another example.

It is very clear to me that Boeing employs cheap people. To those who post on this site who have no understanding of what they opine on..HIYA..so glad you are nowhere near me or anything that I use day to day. May you burn in hell.


It is my considered opinion that this is not written by anyone with a UK Chartered Engineers Degree, for what he states is simply utter hogwash, drivel and a misrepresentation of the truth. The only oaths uttered at Imperial College during my brief visit there were from the cleaning lady.

Denti states in the following post: Engineers in the rest of the world outside the uk are usually persons who have a masters degree in engineering. In the UK most "engineers" are what would be called a mechanic or maintenance personnel in the rest of the world.

Simply two different things, don't confuse them please. Both lompasos and mad (flt) scientist (who has his background in the nick) posts speak for themselves, not only on this topic but all over this site.

By the way, not only boeing employs cheap people, so does airbus. It is what every business does if it can get away with it, mainly it is about saving every penny possible.


This poster is probably more at fault than his predecessor; not only has he made assumptions about something he cannot justify (cheap people) if there is such a breed but he has also manged to insult what is considered to be one of the finest Engineering Degrees in the world. He might be forgiven if he is confusing those with a degree with the the excellent training given at the Aircraft Apprentice Schools which produce such sought after 'engineers' all around the world.

Mechanincs work in garages mate. Which website did you get your 'degree' from I wonder?
rubik101 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2011, 18:05
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1
The Documentary

I am the producer of the documentary film which is the subject of this thread.

Should any contributors wish to ask any questions about the evidence we found or the process by which the film was produced I will be happy to do what I can to assist.

Tim Tate
TimTate is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2011, 14:37
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Thank You!

May I ask if at any stage you felt intimidated in any way while you were working on this documentary?

A lot of intimidation goes on in the aircraft world and I would expect that you noticed a lot of negative reponses.

May I say that the people you interviewed were some of the bravest I have seen on any media programme.
DERG is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2011, 14:43
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
That would be Imperial London?

Glad I dropped by.
DERG is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 04:46
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 940
Not to me it wasn't.

Imperial College website:

Aeronautics

Imperial College London still sits atop every page of the website so quite what is your point DERG? You think because the students refer to it as simply 'Imperial', means something significant?

So are you going to tell us on which course and the where and when you swore this 'oath' you refer to.

No, I thought not.
rubik101 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2011, 11:07
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
The Oath

Sunderland Poly 1974. Advanced Social Engineering.

Last edited by DERG; 11th Jan 2011 at 11:10. Reason: omission
DERG is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.