Oh Boeing… again 🤬

roundout said:
Umm, the entire airplane? Specifically the engines. Which is what caused, uh, stuff.
Click to expand...
Dude! I'm a modern pilot, and a modern human being, and mostly (wraps self in flag, bible in left hand, right hand ready for empty oath-giving) a modern 'Murican! The headline and the lead paragraph's lead sentence are the key. Better yet, a Picture! I like pictures. AI pictures are even better.

For more than that, I have no time or interest or ability, or curiosity, or engagement... or even just basic consciousness.

Sorry, I really did gloss this one. I was talking about automated ice detection and the automated vs non-automated anti-ice switch (which, you know, is the part I quoted). If I missed some other the salient parts, that's on me, and mia culpa.
 
Last edited:
knot4u said:
This is what a GTF looks like, it was introduced over five decades ago...
View attachment 76286
Click to expand...



1706756343589.gif
 
KLB said:
For those who havd been arguing for less government regulation....well this is a peek under the tent. The FAA gave Boeing all the room in the world and this is what happened.
Click to expand...
The last guy was very much the industry's "guy," which is no way to run the railroad.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
The last guy was very much the industry's "guy," which is no way to run the railroad.
Click to expand...

Not at all. This spans some administrations though honestly. Boeing has had big lobbying capital which has given them much control. And they have been cutting corners. That's what happens when a company is given the option to cut corners when it comes to doing right or saving a dollar.
 
form810 said:
Sorry, I really did gloss this one. I was talking about automated ice detection and the automated vs non-automated anti-ice switch (which, you know, is the part I quoted). If I missed some other the salient parts, that's on me, and mia culpa.
Click to expand...

Nothing changed with the anti ice portion of the system. The issue is that on the non MAX versions of the 737, if there is no ice and you forget to turn it off, nothing happens. On the MAX, because of the new engine design and materials, bad stuff can happen if you don't turn it off.
 
KLB said:
Not at all. This spans some administrations though honestly. Boeing has had big lobbying capital which has given them much control. And they have been cutting corners. That's what happens when a company is given the option to cut corners when it comes to doing right or saving a dollar.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but with the note that The Former Guy (who also wants to be The Next Guy) and his Party, who control a supermajority on the Supreme Court, are actively dismantling what's left of the regulatory state.

But yeah, the FAA's the classic example of regulatory capture used in lower-division political science classes, and has been since I was an undergrad, which was quite some time ago...anyway.
 
If the cowl is a new part, I wonder why couldn't they also put some anti-ice wigdet in the new ducting that would protect ya neckcowl when the system was left on.

It's like they were hanging their ass out the window just daring anyone to kick it.

edit: like, Ted Cruz levels of humiliation fetish going on there.
 
Minuteman said:
If the cowl is a new part, I wonder why couldn't they also put some anti-ice wigdet in the new ducting that would protect ya neckcowl when the system was left on.

It's like they were hanging their ass out the window just daring anyone to kick it.

edit: like, Ted Cruz levels of humiliation fetish going on there.
Click to expand...
Something something pilots not computers
 
ZapBrannigan said:

Boeing withdrew their request to certify the Max -7 (and Max -10) without changes to the anti-ice system.

For those who are unaware, the 737 doesn’t have an ice detector or automatic cowl anti-ice. It relies on the crew to turn on and off the cowl anti ice in icing conditions. On the NG, if you forget to turn it off for a while it’s no big deal. On the Max, apparently there is a very slim chance that if you operate it in dry air at a very specific combination of temperature, altitude, phase of the moon etc.… the cowl lip might get too hot, come apart, puncture the fuselage and whatnot.

Boeing wanted to certify the Max -7 anyway based on millions of hours flown with the -8 with no issues, while they work on a fix which they said would take several years.

After the Alaska incident several congress critters said “no more exemptions!”. They already gave Boeing a get out of jail free card on EICAS for the -7 and -10. They’re mad about loose rudder bolts and apparently missing door bolts. So Boeing rescinded their request.

That means waiting for a fix which is likely to add several years to the -7 timeline. Which is no big deal unless you need to replace an aging fleet of hundreds of -700s…

Airbus has no capacity for additional lines to fill that demand. Even if they did they’re dealing with their own P&W GTF issues and apparently an EASA mandate to check for spar cracks.

Embraer doesn’t have anything that can carry 150 pax with the range the -7 promised.

This is bad.
Click to expand...
Well...looks like the Comac 919 is the viable option now hahaha...
en.wikipedia.org

Comac C919 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
ZapBrannigan said:

Boeing withdrew their request to certify the Max -7 (and Max -10) without changes to the anti-ice system.

For those who are unaware, the 737 doesn’t have an ice detector or automatic cowl anti-ice. It relies on the crew to turn on and off the cowl anti ice in icing conditions. On the NG, if you forget to turn it off for a while it’s no big deal. On the Max, apparently there is a very slim chance that if you operate it in dry air at a very specific combination of temperature, altitude, phase of the moon etc.… the cowl lip might get too hot, come apart, puncture the fuselage and whatnot.

Boeing wanted to certify the Max -7 anyway based on millions of hours flown with the -8 with no issues, while they work on a fix which they said would take several years.

After the Alaska incident several congress critters said “no more exemptions!”. They already gave Boeing a get out of jail free card on EICAS for the -7 and -10. They’re mad about loose rudder bolts and apparently missing door bolts. So Boeing rescinded their request.

That means waiting for a fix which is likely to add several years to the -7 timeline. Which is no big deal unless you need to replace an aging fleet of hundreds of -700s…

Airbus has no capacity for additional lines to fill that demand. Even if they did they’re dealing with their own P&W GTF issues and apparently an EASA mandate to check for spar cracks.

Embraer doesn’t have anything that can carry 150 pax with the range the -7 promised.

This is bad.
Click to expand...

What in the actual...

But I do have to ask, is that an engine manufacturing issue or a Boeing issue?
 
derg said:
What in the actual...

But I do have to ask, is that an engine manufacturing issue or a Boeing issue?
Click to expand...

The cowling and engine case are (generally) the aircraft manufacturer's design, and the stuff that goes inside of them are the engine manufacturer.

@inigo88?
 
Inverted said:
s


Boeing. Same engine in the NEO and on Airbus NEOs, that is not an issue.
Click to expand...

Ahh, interesting.

At some point, it seems that having Boeing make all these ridiculous mistakes is going to become a national security issue, unless the military side has it's crap together.
 
derg said:
Ahh, interesting.

At some point, it seems that having Boeing make all these ridiculous mistakes is going to become a national security issue, unless the military side has it's crap together.
Click to expand...

Time will tell on your last point. The only true "Boeing" defense aircraft in service right now, are the commercial derivatives, and one might be able to argue the F-15EX (though still a MacAir original), since it was fiddled with so heavily.......but mainly by incorporating existing FBW technology that came from the MacAir F/A-18. The single touchscreen Jumbotron glass cockpit is Boeing's though, albeit adapted from the Block III Super Hornet ACS cockpit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top