[cwoodward]

I am seriously beginning to believe that Boeing is on the way to becoming a latter day Dodo.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-boeing-certification-e/exclusive-boeing-seeking-to-reduce-scope-duration-of-some-physical-tests-for-new-aircraft-sources-idUSKCN1TH0A3

2 users thanked author for this post.

LuganoPirate, alanred13

[nevereconomy]

Said my bit on this already – US government oversight is very poor for industries which are “politically sensitive” (i.e. where politicians get the most cash for their State or election campaign from those industries) and Trump certainly will support any deregulation that get him votes, even if that means an unsafe airplane is certified.

[LuganoPirate]

I never fly any new aircraft model until it’s been flown for at least 3 years. Paranoid maybe, but that’s me. In fact I still haven’t flown the 787 yet.
The MAX I will never fly in until it’s passed all the tests and has flown for at least 2 years without incident related to the plane itself.

What worries me most about this article, is that for any computer testing to work, the programming needs human input. And if this is left to Boeing engineers who can tell what parameters they will put in. For example, it wouldn’t be difficult to adjust the parameters so that each wing tip could touch the other without breaking, but we all know in real life the wings would snap, or the plane fall out the sky! Only if this was left to a fully independent body would I start to have some confidence in the method!

[transtraxman]

I have started to mull over the question of whether aircraft engine design and airframe development have not reached, or are reaching the limit of betterment. I am not an engineer so have no idea what potential still exists for manufacturers to take things to another stage.

With the problems experienced by Rolls Royce on the Trent engine, the question would be, have they gone too far or do they need to take a step back to rethink? By the way where else is the Trent engine used apart from on the Boeing 787? The same goes for the Boeing 737Max. Airbus I see is not gloating over Boeing´s problems because they themselves could well be one step away from the same sort of problems.

IAG has given Boeing a well needed boost of confidence (without doubt with plenty of incentives) with its order for 200 B737Max. This also helps the public to ascertain if Boeing is serious in getting rid of these serious bugs/teething problems.

If, as CWOODWARD #944093 points out, the the US government permits Boeing to substitute physical airframe testing with simulated computer testing then we are on a downward slope. Passenger safety should be paramount and be seen to be paramount. This, otherwise, is cost-cutting gone unacceptably mad.

As an extension of the whole of this problem we should look at aircraft substitution. Airlines tend to explain that they are going to replace their old models Z-WBBs with the new models Z-WFFs. That is fine when everything gels. However, we are now in a situation when the new models are not completely airworthy because of teething problems. This is something which could happen more and more in the future. Would it not be better then that the airline does not withdraw its old aircraft but puts them in mothballs just as the aircraft are in the Mojave desert. That way they could be recalled to replace the new” out of order” airframes so that the timetable is maintained.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jacob

[canucklad]

[quote quote=944116]If, as CWOODWARD #944093 points out, the the US government permits Boeing to substitute physical airframe testing with simulated computer testing then we are on a downward slope. Passenger safety should be paramount and be seen to be paramount. This, otherwise, is cost-cutting gone unacceptably mad.[/quote]

There is quite a few topics on the forum linked to this one, and the common denominator seems to always link back to the relationship between Boeing, the airlines and the government regulator , the FAA .

You could argue that historically, this cosy relationship has resulted in an unacceptable loss of life over the years. It’s an open secret that the NTSB does not have much faith with this ongoing level of co-operation and has on many occasions recommended an adjustment to the FAA’s “ loyalties “ without much success.

As travellers we trust flying on US carriers and using US built aircraft and flying through US airspace .
Yet if you delve deeper into the incidents over the years, you’ll find business pressure ( PROFIT) has always overridden passenger safety up until liability (DEATH) costs tip the balance. Back to safety

It’s a sort of capitalist mirror version of Soviet system rationale , yet how many of us would have confidently have flown in the USSR ?

1 user thanked author for this post.

WinnipegMax

[cwoodward]

canucklad’s posts I believe makes some good points that add perspective to the previous posts around this subject.
In the 1980s I flew in the USSR(as it was) and in China (On CAAC) many times…….. but never confidently.

[IanFromHKG]

[quote quote=944116]With the problems experienced by Rolls Royce on the Trent engine, the question would be, have they gone too far or do they need to take a step back to rethink? By the way where else is the Trent engine used apart from on the Boeing 787? [/quote]

Variants of the Trent are used on the A330, the A330neo, the A340, the A350, the A380 and the B777 as well as the B787. However, only certain variants have been implicated in the latest problems – the Trent itself – the underlying core – is well-proven and highly efficient. Indeed, the Trent XWB used on the A350 is said to be the most efficient large commercial aero engine in the sky.

Oh, and the Trent is itself a derivative of the RB211, used on the B747, B757, B767, Tristar and even the Tu-204. In fact, there aren’t many large passenger aircraft that haven’t, in one form or another, had one of these engines!

RR are having a rethink, by the way – if you take a look at their website you can see details of their research into the Advance and UltraFan concepts – quite interesting.

3 users thanked author for this post.

mkcol74, PhilipHart, cwoodward

[capetonianm]

Another kick for Boeing :

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-france-to-swap-on-order-787s-for-klms-a350s-459377/
28 June, 2019 SOURCE: Flight Dashboard BY: Oliver Clark London

Air France is to exchange six Boeing 787s it has on order for Airbus A350s set to be delivered to KLM, as part of a fleet optimisation drive.

1 user thanked author for this post.

tomwjsimpson

[cwoodward]

This from Bloomberg is almost beyond belief.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

Greed,ineptitude,indifference,irresponsible governance?
How did the once proud maker of many of the world’s best aircraft begin to disintegrate so quickly?

Like humpty dumpty can it be put back together again ?

If not which maker/country is capable of filling the void. Japan perhaps. China I believe no – not trusted and not at this time capable.
One of the American military aircraft makers is my guess; who perhaps with government assistance may be induced to pick up the pieces.
Is the UK still capable of making large passenger aircraft ? A Boris’big bus’project perhaps………..

All this of course assumes that, as I suspect Boeing may be too broken to mend.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alanred13

[openfly]

Is there worse to come….particularly with the 787?!

[capetonianm]

It may be too broken to mend, as cwoodward says, and its reputation will worsen as the press and ‘inside sources’ dish more dirt, but it is also too big to fail.

Quite how it continues from this point is something on which I would not wish to speculate. I suspect it is only a matter of time before similar revelations begin to emerge about Airbus. In this day and age of cut-throat rivalry, nobody and nothing is squeaky clean.

4 users thanked author for this post.

TiredOldHack2, AFlyingDutchman, tomwjsimpson, cwoodward

[transtraxman]

That comment about Airbus is, as yet, unfounded and unjustified mudslinging speculation.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Folium

[stevescoots]

I am sure there may be some skeletons in the cupboard at airbus, but I doubt as bad as the Boeing situation. Airbus, by nature of its corporate structure and ownership is far more likely to have better oversight of design and manufacturing process (or should I say less interference from corporate wonks) and that the cut costs at all cost’s mentality of Boeing. I have not looked it up, but it would be interesting to see what the profits and share price of Boeing has done over the past 10 years prior to the 737 issues and taking out the period of the 787 issues

1 user thanked author for this post.

tomwjsimpson

[canucklad]

The cynical side of me would hint that the relationship between Airbus and the BEA is far too cosy. Incidents that have involved Airbus airframes disproportionately seem to blame (at least perception wise, I’m not an accident aficionado) pilot error.

Consider the original fly by wire issues , yet the blame seemed to still be tagged onto the crew, and not the original fault .
In other words, if it had been an Airbus , the (in) actions of the Indonesian and Ethiopian pilots would have been emphasised more than the failings of the so called updated safety features ,

The NTSB on the other hand seems to be a continual thorn on the side of manufacturers and regulators .

2 users thanked author for this post.

LondonViking, AFlyingDutchman

[Tramor01]

More bad news, I came across a link to this article on flight Aware – Boing falsifying Air Canada 787 documents

Boeing Admits Air Canada 787 Documents Were Falsified

[Author]

Posts