Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Denali

The fallout for Boeing continues

Recommended Posts

reo   
4 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Boeing isn’t going to fold. The Max needs to immediately be scrapped and start from the drawing board.

 

The problem wasn’t the software or the pilots. It was essentially a bug that wasn’t worked out from the designers to the pilots. The bridge was not made and it left the pilots guessing, which is awful, and they deserve to be drilled for it. Still, how many accidents happen every single day on the streets? Obviously it’s different in this situation, but expecting perfection is ridiculous. What needs to be rooted out is the lack of overview and also the people responsible for this should fall under the heaviest level of litigation, possibly falling under criminal if they’re found to have knowingly sent these planes out improperly tested. 

No, it was the software and not enough testing. It doesn't need to be scrapped. They just need to fix the bug.

Edited by reo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way do I see Boeing folding from this, although the 737 Max program will likely take a huge hit in orders until there is a proven fix, which obviously will take time to ease the minds of buyers, stockholders, and passengers even wanting to fly on them. Any time you ground an entire fleet, it is a bad look on the manufacturer, but they hopefully learn a huge lesson from this going forward. The 737 is one of the safest and most reliable platforms ever produced, and the fact that after all these years the same basic design still exists should say something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denali   
6 hours ago, ManningEnvy said:

Hey Touched The Tard, in the last 24 hours, how many fucked in the head women do you think have fucked an animal? Look in the mirror and ask yourself some questions.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

Here ya go.  This will get you some:

 

Cow.JPG.8caf842a99fc95a9d385d2b3832e6219.JPG

Edited by Denali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reo   
6 hours ago, Starkiller said:

 

Yeah there was a Vox article I posted last week or the week before that went through this in detail.

 

Essentially it's a software bug that didn't account for the possibility of a faulty sensor and it wasn't caught due to too little testing. And pilots weren't up to speed enough to know how to deal with it. 

 

They even had a warning light that showed when the MCAS system was taking over due to this stall but the light was optional and wasn't on all aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denali   

It's a software band-aid that tries to compensate for an inherently unstable aircraft.

 

It's not working.  Boeing cut corners.  The FAA allowed it to happen.  Then Boeing lied.  Then the President had to step in to ground the planes because the FAA wouldn't do it.  Hundreds died.

 

No one is going to trust Boeing and the FAA again.  All of the technical explanations will no longer matter.  People will view it as spin-doctoring (as well they should).  It's over.

 

Boeing is dead man walking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep. boeing should be fucked for this. 

 

on a readdit thread the other day though they asked boeing employees how the atmosphere was different around the office and they said... "business as usual" 

 

see if the Govt protects them because they are too big to fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denali   
31 minutes ago, titanruss said:

see if the Govt protects them because they are too big to fail. 

Trump is anything but sympathetic for them.  Remember, he had to step in to begin with.  And he has told them to re-brand the plane.  They are not listening to him.

 

The only way the government steps in is if Trump is allowed to drain the swamp at Boeing and the FAA.  Heads upon heads would need to roll.  And maybe even criminal prosecutions.

 

Edited by Denali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, reo said:

Yeah there was a Vox article I posted last week or the week before that went through this in detail.

 

Essentially it's a software bug that didn't account for the possibility of a faulty sensor and it wasn't caught due to too little testing. And pilots weren't up to speed enough to know how to deal with it. 

 

They even had a warning light that showed when the MCAS system was taking over due to this stall but the light was optional and wasn't on all aircraft. 

This all makes sense, but if all of this started with trying to mount a bigger engine under the wing, would it not have made sense for Boeing to make the 737 taller with longer landing gear as opposed to raising the engine to an awkward height on the wing to make it fit. All the previous 737 models have corrected this with a flat bottom on the engine cowlings, and I get why Boeing originally made the 737 so low to the ground, but if the plane was the height of say an Airbus A320, the engines would fit in a more standard position..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, titanruss said:

yep. boeing should be fucked for this. 

 

on a readdit thread the other day though they asked boeing employees how the atmosphere was different around the office and they said... "business as usual" 

 

see if the Govt protects them because they are too big to fail. 

The gov't will protect them.  And they should, but maybe not for the reason(s) you suspect.

 

Boeing is hip deep (or more) in our national defense infrastructure, works hand-in-hand with DARPA and pretty much all branches of the dotmil.

They won't go away over a few passenger plane crashes, regardless of what we civilians may think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reo   
3 hours ago, Former_Fan said:

This all makes sense, but if all of this started with trying to mount a bigger engine under the wing, would it not have made sense for Boeing to make the 737 taller with longer landing gear as opposed to raising the engine to an awkward height on the wing to make it fit. All the previous 737 models have corrected this with a flat bottom on the engine cowlings, and I get why Boeing originally made the 737 so low to the ground, but if the plane was the height of say an Airbus A320, the engines would fit in a more standard position..

I havent looked in depth into their design decisions but I'll take a guess.

 

First off I'm not really sure why they wanted the larger engine. Someone on the outside might initially guess that it's a more powerful engine and although it might be, that's probably not the reasoning. A more powerful engine would be about increasing speed or acceleration but lift is a function of airspeed and wing design so more airspeed isn't really something they'd probably want. And as a commercial airliner, acceleration isnt really a factor either.

 

But a larger diameter engine could probably increase airflow through the intake which might make them more fuel efficient. My guess would be that's their reasoning. 

 

However if that's the case they don't really want to add more weight to do it bc more weight means they need more lift. Changing the landing gear height would mean more weight from the landing gears and changing the landing gear bays to accommodate the larger gears, possibly also adding more weight. This also meaning they'd either need to fly faster or more lift from the existing wings.

 

Instead they just out the new engines into the wings instead of under them figuring they'd still have plenty of lift to manage (and they do).

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...