The only way Boeing are going to escape all of this, is with a new aeroplane, and some sweeping staff changes wouldn't hurt either, because the damage has been done and worse than this, most of it was self-inflicted in its own boardrooms.

Regardless of what we think about the decision to not make a new aeroplane and instead tart up an old one, even if the 737 MAX is made to fly safely and the FAA and Boeing's management all turn over a new leaf and stop cosying up to one another and circumventing safe practices, the 737 MAX is still ultimately what it started out to be - an attempt to match newer (and not even the latest) A320 and A321 variants in as cheap a way as possible in what will inevitably be a developmental cul-de-sac, a short-sighted attempt to make a profit, rather than a wiser and more creative effort geared toward the long game.

We saw this with their attempts to shoot Airbus and Bombardier up the @rse with their dumping complaint, instead of doing what Boeing's board would have done years ago, which would almost certainly have been a decision to roll up its collective sleeves and make a better aeroplane which people preferred to buy. This is the company which in the past constructed what at the time was the largest building ever made, in which they proposed to build the largest passenger airliner ever made, and they started making it before the building had even had its roof finished, putting its entire finances all in one basket, because it was confident it would not and could not fail. What a sad shadow of that company Boeing is these days.

Aside from the fact that the entire MAX fiasco as a business decision, is indicative of a management with a self-serving approach to things in the form of short-term profit bonuses, if we disregard this, we're still looking at a boardroom populated by people who actually had to be told and regulated into putting safety first, rather than striving for that as a goal just because it's what was the smart thing to do as well as the right thing to do. That's your 'highest levels of management' right there; a bunch of people who had to be legislated and cajoled into doing things right because they cared more about a short-term bonus than the lives of 338 people, and now they're attempting to wave this forced-upon-them change around as indicative of their safety, like it is something to be proud of.

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by Chock

12 hours ago, NZ255 said:

A factoid is a false fact 🙂

Not according to Merriam-Webster. It's also a fact that is real but trivial.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/some-facts-about-factoids  . But, that said, when it must be used I much prefer the term "alternative fact", as opposed to just plain "false fact". It sounds so much better. Especially in a press a conference  🙂 .

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by W2DR
kant spel

Im looking at this purely from an aircraft systems standpoint.

Manufacturing management and pilot training where both attributes to these accidents. With the total reliance on flyby wire and glass cockpits there is absolutely no guarantee that this wouldn't have happend with a new airframe. Its easy in retrospect to say they should have built a new airframe but little is being said about the airlines not wanting a brand new shorthaul airframe due to the costs of purchasing and retraining of pilots / cabin crew 

Unfortunately though we always learn by these types of events and safety moves forward. To go off topic Formula1 is a perfect example. The Halo which was introduced due to Jules Bianci tragic accident, no doubt saved Romain Grosjeans life a few races ago.

36 minutes ago, Garys said:

With the total reliance on flyby wire and glass cockpits

... and crew being trained as systems operators and analysts after gaining 400 feet of altitude rather than #flythedamnplane... 

Mind you, my offer still stands for being self-loading adjustable in-flight ballast on a MAX return flight from my local airport... FOR FREE.. 

1 hour ago, Garys said:

Unfortunately though we always learn by these types of events and safety moves forward. To go off topic Formula1 is a perfect example. The Halo which was introduced due to Jules Bianci tragic accident, no doubt saved Romain Grosjeans life a few races ago.

Yup, or as they call it in the airline industry: 'tombstone technology'.

16 hours ago, Chock said:

AF 296 crash at Habsheim was poor planning for an airshow routine, poor piloting decisions and a bit of showboating which went wrong, not a fault with the aeroplane.

I was thinking more the parallels in the certification process that when the FBW of the A320 came into question the regulatory agency deferred to the manufacture. When the MCAS came under scrutiny in the 737MAX the FAA did not have the in house expertise and deferred to the manufacture. The flying public tends to trust these regulating agencies when it comes to the certification of Transport Category Airplanes and when the agency does not have the in house experts to validate the manufacture met specific safety requirements, you have to ask who is running the aircraft certification process? Either way in 5 years the public will go right back to boarding airplanes as unlike the DC10 which was easily identifiable by its third tail mounted engine, John Q Public could not identify a 737 versus a A320 or a 767 versus an A330. In fact generally, all John Q Public generally cares about is how much legroom they get and how cute are the flight attendants.

6 hours ago, CYXR said:

The deaths of 346 passengers and crew members and the grieving of their loved ones are not BS. 

 If you had a case for the ungrounding of the 737-MAX, you wouln`t need to insult their memory and hurt their loved ones more than they already have been.  All those who have doubts about the  FAA`s ungrounding of the 737-MAX are having them  because the FAA didn`t implement an independent joint authorities technical review process. The data used to justify the ungrounding of the 737-MAX was never made public. The same just trust us and take our word for it approach that ended the lives and dreams of all these victims and their loved ones is being tried again. Secrecy; not the transparency that Boeing promised; is what is speaking for itself today. 

``FlyersRights.org has filed a motion for Summary Judgment in its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the FAA. (Flyers Rights Education Fund v. FAA, (D.D.C. CV-19-3749 (CKK)). It seeks disclosure of FAA documents pertaining to the proposed ungrounding of the 737 MAX, so independent experts and the public can review the basis on which the FAA intends to unground the plane.`` This motion is supported by the following people: ``Michael Neely (20 years with Boeing as a system engineer and project engineer), Javier de Luis PhD (30 years of experience as an aeronautical engineer and manager, MIT lecturer), Richard Spinks (38 years of experience in process safety, automation engineering), Dennis Coughlin (31 years of experience as an avionics technician and instructor), Ajit Agtey (40 years of experience as an airline and military pilot, and former Chief Test Pilot of the Indian Air Force), Daniel Gellert (50 years as a commercial airline pilot, Boeing test pilot, and FAA official), Geoffrey Barrance (30 years experience as an avionics, air frame and safety engineer), Gregory Travis (over 30 years experience as a computer software scientist/executive, private pilot), Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger (37 years experience as an airline and military pilot, 10 years as an aviation safety consultant and author, celebrated for successful landing of a disabled airliner in the Hudson River), Michael Goldfarb (over 30 years experience as aviation safety consultant and former FAA aviation safety policy official), and Sara Nelson, president of the largest flight attendant union Association of Flight Attendants AFA.``

source: 
https://flyersrights.org/737-max/flyersrights-org-and-aviation-experts-ask-federal-court-to-break-faa-and-boeings-secrecy-pact-and-release-737-max-documents/

Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger is full of BS? I don`t think so.  

Edited January 26, 20215 yr by ahsmatt7

59 minutes ago, KenG said:

Either way in 5 years the public will go right back to boarding airplanes as unlike the DC10 which was easily identifiable by its third tail mounted engine, John Q Public could not identify a 737 versus a A320 or a 767 versus an A330. In fact generally, all John Q Public generally cares about is how much legroom they get and how cute are the flight attendants.

This is probably true, in fact I was occasionally surprised when people I worked with at the airport - including people whose job it was to work on the airliners - were unable to identify the individual airliner types, and especially the A320 versus the 737. Seems obvious which one is which to all us plane nerds, but it really isn't for most people.

17 minutes ago, Chock said:

This is probably true, in fact I was occasionally surprised when people I worked with at the airport - including people whose job it was to work on the airliners - were unable to identify the individual airliner types, and especially the A320 versus the 737. Seems obvious which one is which to all us plane nerds, but it really isn't for most people.

I've had a colleague who was at the airport for a few weeks already be surprised to learn that not every airline builds their own aircraft/that aircraft types are being used by more than one airline. He didn't know where to connect the ground power to and was surprised it's in the same spot as on that other aircraft he was at before because he thought an A320 isn't being used by airlines other than that one airline 😄. Not even some people working in aviation have a clue.

I'm as appalled at what went on at Boeing and the FAA as everyone else and I fully criticize them for what has happened/what they've done and how they did it. I would also like to see the FAA documents related to the un-grounding myself. I don't doubt the expertise of the individual whose report I have read that was posted here by the OP. But given the storm of scrutiny this aircraft has faced in the last 2 years, I still stand by what I've been thinking and saying for some time now, which is that I don't see how this aircraft would stand a chance of getting through it if it still wasn't fixed and still unsafe.

I'm aware of the certification process and how the FAA failed in that so I wouldn't put a lot of trust in them at this point myself. However, this time there are several different regulators who spent/are spending months to investigate the aircraft and test it according to their own, individual criteria while developing their own requirements for it to be allowed to fly in their airspace again. Now they are all coming to the same underlying conclusion, which is that the aircraft is safe. If all of this still wasn't able to ensure the safety of an aircraft, it would be a critical issue across the aviation industry as a whole and you wouldn't get on any aircraft that hasn't proven itself in practice by flying without design-related accident for a decade.

18 hours ago, W2DR said:

I must have missed something.

From the referenced article..."Most Model Ts were black. Not all, just most. The early 1909 models were red and gray, but in the middle of 1909 this gave way to a dark green. During December 1910 and January, 1911, the dark green in turn was changed to a dark, almost black, midnight blue. Finally, in late 1914 to early 1915 the blues were replaced with just plain black on the open cars. From this point until the introduction of the “Improved Models” which appeared in August 1925, black was the standard color. Roughly 11,500,000 cars were produced during this time period and even after the introduction of the Improved Models, many of whose bodies were painted in green and maroon, a substantial portion of the cars, and even whole cars, continued to be painted black."

Doesn't that say that everything between 1914 and 1925 was painted black? Or, am I just confused (again)?

 

 

Black yes, but not to reduce drying time.  (I used to own a 23 high-radiator touring car, which of course was black and no brass or chrome as in earlier and later cars.)

 

scott s.

.

 

17 hours ago, NZ255 said:

A factoid is a false fact 🙂

Not necessarily. 

Quote

A factoid is either a false statement presented as a fact, or a true but brief or trivial item of news or information. ... Since its creation in 1973, the term has evolved, now often being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information.

 

1 hour ago, scott967 said:

Black yes, but not to reduce drying time.  (I used to own a 23 high-radiator touring car, which of course was black and no brass or chrome as in earlier and later cars.)

Dang it, you're right on Scott. I did a little more research and found out I've been wrong about that for over 70 years. When I was a kid (1946-1948) my friends dad would take us to the movies every Saturday afternoon. And we rode in the bed of his Model-T pickup. It was he who told me that all the Model'T's were black because the paint dried faster. And I believed that until yesterday. Thanks for the tip. I'm sad to see another childhood factoid turn out to be false  but, at least, I do remember where I heard it 🙂 .