1 hour ago, threegreen said:

Maybe I missed something but where does this article contain actual news? I can't see anything I didn't know before. The headline seems like made up drama.

It said that they had reports of AOA failures that were common in the past. Listen to the video again.and pay attention this time. ....

Edited May 6, 20197 yr by Bobsk8

Boy.. we are sure milking this..

Boeing is trying to fix the problem and get the planes back into the air, why not leave it at that..  Hope they are successful..

5 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Boy.. we are sure milking this..

Boeing is trying to fix the problem and get the planes back into the air, why not leave it at that..  Hope they are successful..

I would suspect the concern that many have is that Boeing not only fix the problem and get the planes back in the air, but that they address the culture in their company that may have led to the problems to begin with and could lead to other problems in the future. For example the four Boeing employee whistleblowers:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-737-max-8-at-least-4-potential-whistleblower-calls-made-to-faa-about-jetliner/

...and the pilots unions complaints that Boeing did not inform them in advance of operational specifics of MCAS

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/u-s-pilots-flying-737-max-werent-told-about-new-automatic-systems-change-linked-to-lion-air-crash/

As far as "milking this", just a friendly suggestion: you could just let the people who wish to discuss this do so. If nobody wishes to discuss further, the forum topic will die out of lack of interest.

 

16 hours ago, Wink207 said:

Well, CNN is known for their "Fake News".

... seriously now?

15 hours ago, AviatorMan said:

The fact that Boeing knew there were issues well in advance and [...] suggesting CNN makes up "fake news" has no place in a forum that claims to not allow political comments.

Boeing has been an icon of aviation, and I have been a big admirer of the company for nearly 60 years [...]

Indeed, can we please leave that "fake... blablabla" remarks as used by wink207 aside and rather continue keeping this discussion reasonable as it used to be. That would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

17 hours ago, Wink207 said:

Well, CNN is known for their "Fake News".

What are you basing that assumption on?! 

Please refrain from generalizing your own personal opinion!

Edited May 7, 20197 yr by Anders Bermann

1 hour ago, Anders Bermann said:

What are you basing that assumption on?! 

Please refrain from generalizing your own personal opinion!

Leave it alone, Anders: he or she is just trolling. It’s a political comment — the President also refers to CNN as fake news as a matter of course. That’s the context here.

What does that mean for the accuracy of this story? Absolutely nothing, obviously, but...

James

Edited May 7, 20197 yr by honanhal

22 hours ago, threegreen said:

Maybe I missed something but where does this article contain actual news? I can't see anything I didn't know before. The headline seems like made up drama.

Don't worry, come work for an airline every time you get a simple medical divert for someone with a bad tummy the press will put this down as 'breaking news' or 'mid air drama/ crisis' 

5 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

What are you basing that assumption on?! 

Please refrain from generalizing your own personal opinion!

And you too Anders, please come visit my OCC when we have a divert you'll see how the press works 

14 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Boy.. we are sure milking this..

Boeing is trying to fix the problem and get the planes back into the air, why not leave it at that..  Hope they are successful..

You do realise theres potential for airlines to fold over this by not being able to use their fleets, its going to cost carriers millions and millions and millions and to try and take boeing to court will be near on impossible for most. 

The 787 engine issue has the potential to bankrupt mine for example, its already cost us over 20 million.   The max scenario is no different. 

Edited May 7, 20197 yr by tooting

23 minutes ago, tooting said:

Don't worry, come work for an airline every time you get a simple medical divert for someone with a bad tummy the press will put this down as 'breaking news' or 'mid air drama/ crisis' 

 

21 minutes ago, tooting said:

And you too Anders, please come visit my OCC when we have a divert you'll see how the press works 

And yet it is one thing to critise a news article for instance by telling what there may be wrong or incorrect or whatsoever in a constructive manner, or by simply blaming an entire news channel by simply calling it all to be "fake...", a phrase that is very much poltically associated these days. Nithing wrong to undertake constructive criticism on media coverage, but it is something very different to just consider it all "fake". My two cents here. Otherwise a very constructive thread really.

23 hours ago, AviatorMan said:

The fact that Boeing knew there were issues well in advance and kept quiet is in fact news.

 

23 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

It said that they had reports of AOA failures that were common in the past. Listen to the video again.and pay attention this time. ....

Bob, I did watch the video and yes, I actually payed attention.

The video talks about 216 recorded instances of problems with AoA vanes. Given the fact that Boeing are one of the two major commercial aircraft manufacturers in the world and the sheer number of Boeing airplanes that are flying all over the world as well as within the specified period of time that the instances have been recorded, 42 instances occurring on Boeing aircraft doesn't really seem to be a particularly high amount to me. Add to that the fact that the AoA vanes used on the 737 aren't exclusive to this model but used by other aircraft as well as other manufacturers too, the reported issues with these devices concern several different aircraft manufacturers, not just Boeing. The main concern here is with the manufacturer of the vanes.

As for the AoA disagree light, as outlined in the article, Boeing convened a board to analyze whether the absence of said warning would render the feasibility of flying the plane safely impossible. It was concluded it would not affect the safe operation of the airplane and not necessary to issue an update for the software right away. It's not like Boeing didn't do anything and went for dubbing the warning optional solely for the sake of profit. In fact, it's plain wrong by the article to say Boeing didn't do anything: After the safety board's conclusion which was shared with the FAA it was planned to issue a fix for the software problem in the next update cycle.

Here's another article that's objective and doesn't make a drama: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-bosses-unaware-of-737-max-aoa-glitch-before-457943/

This article also doesn't mention the record of AoA vane problems which doesn't even seem relevant in this case because the story is about the software problem preventing the AoA warning from displaying. It's not about problems with the AoA vane itself where Boeing allegedly didn't do anything.

I'm skeptical about Boeing to say the least since the accidents and I'm not defending the company against justified scrutiny, but I still think the article in question is totally overhyping the matter here.

Edited May 7, 20197 yr by threegreen
Inserting the link and adding to my post

16 hours ago, threegreen said:

 

Bob, I did watch the video and yes, I actually payed attention.

The video talks about 216 recorded instances of problems with AoA vanes. Given the fact that Boeing are one of the two major commercial aircraft manufacturers in the world and the sheer number of Boeing airplanes that are flying all over the world as well as within the specified period of time that the instances have been recorded, 42 instances occurring on Boeing aircraft doesn't really seem to be a particularly high amount to me. Add to that the fact that the AoA vanes used on the 737 aren't exclusive to this model but used by other aircraft as well as other manufacturers too, the reported issues with these devices concern several different aircraft manufacturers, not just Boeing. The main concern here is with the manufacturer of the vanes.

As for the AoA disagree light, as outlined in the article, Boeing convened a board to analyze whether the absence of said warning would render the feasibility of flying the plane safely impossible. It was concluded it would not affect the safe operation of the airplane and not necessary to issue an update for the software right away. It's not like Boeing didn't do anything and went for dubbing the warning optional solely for the sake of profit. In fact, it's plain wrong by the article to say Boeing didn't do anything: After the safety board's conclusion which was shared with the FAA it was planned to issue a fix for the software problem in the next update cycle.

Here's another article that's objective and doesn't make a drama: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-bosses-unaware-of-737-max-aoa-glitch-before-457943/

This article also doesn't mention the record of AoA vane problems which doesn't even seem relevant in this case because the story is about the software problem preventing the AoA warning from displaying. It's not about problems with the AoA vane itself where Boeing allegedly didn't do anything.

I'm skeptical about Boeing to say the least since the accidents and I'm not defending the company against justified scrutiny, but I still think the article in question is totally overhyping the matter here.

Hinge the lives of hundreds of passengers on a failure prone item, with the failure of that item resulting in a crash.  Beyond stupid. 

48 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Hinge the lives of hundreds of passengers on a failure prone item, with the failure of that item resulting in a crash.  Beyond stupid. 

The lack of redundancy was not the only proximate cause of the crash. The crew’s failure to follow training and procedures was the last link in an accident chain which began with a corporate decision to not change the landing gear length.

Hello,

at what point does something move from being a cause to an effect?

The long "accident chain" cannot start if the first link is not in place and

everything that follows the first link can be avoided if it is not there.

For example, if there is no device that can in any circumstances point the aircraft irretrievably towards the ground,

then there is no need of crew training to avoid with that eventuality.

It makes no sense to me to install a device that if not disabled will cause the aircraft to dive into the ground,

especially one that depends on one sensor to not do that.

Once again, just an interested but uninformed bystander here.

That’s kind of fatalistic. One should hope the two people in the cockpit are not such fatalists. The accident is prevented when any link in the chain is broken. That is the point of crm training these days. Many of these links the pilot has no control over, but there are links that the the pilot can control. And that is the purpose of the pilots. To make sure that last link to an accident is broken.