Ok. Per your many other posts in which you 'oft say one thing, but mean something else, I'm gonna go ahead and ask the stupid question: What -precisely- did you mean by, "Yep you're right."???
Extra credit for honesty and humility in your answer.
Oh, Boeing
- Thread starter srleslie
- Start date
Extra credit for honesty and humility in your answer.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
That means plainly that I've decided your opinion is unworthy of my time and rather than argue I'll exit the conversation. Do you have some yearning to try and convince people that your viewpoint is correct? I don't and I have no issue just walking away. Is that modest enough?
Whatever your blather. You STILL didn't answer the simple question I asked.
You've got to ask yourself ONE question, punk. "Why didn't I just answer the guy's question?"+
Just sayin'... but in my travails, and intendancies and travels... When I encounter someone avoiding answering a simple question, I can judge with almost certain confidence that that person either: 1. has no answer, or 2. is acting in avoidance because he knows he's FOS.
Last edited:
knot4u
Repeat Offender
"Yep, You're Right" followed by a quick exit from the conversation should be considered as an insult because it means the person doing the Irish goodbye doesn't consider your point of view worthy of discussion. Is there any possible way that I can make it more clear to you that I consider you an imbecile and every time I engage in conversation with you my heart hurts due to the waste of time and energy. Sometimes I get a hair in my ass, tonight you're it. So talk you • dunderhead.
My, my, such negative energy!
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
This is a some what frequent problem, as it happens often enough the FAA has a program to address it. While I am not privy to the processes at Boeing and this problem, what I have seen is all sorts of problems from vendors because the lack of oversight from the final consumer. A typical scenario would be the airframe manufacturer out sources a subassembly; landing gear, pumps, or even wing box sections. That vendor produces the widgets to spec (dimensions, metallurgy, functionality, etc.) and appropriate paperwork for the component. So in this case, substandard material was used, but fraudulent paperwork to the contrary was presented. So unless the parts were thoroughly inspected (read: increased production costs and delay), the paperwork says it is a widget, so it is a widget that confirms to a spec, such as, ASTM D3492-16.
Here’s the FAA program:
invadertim
In my experence, its always my fault.
Prosecutors have recommended criminal charges be filed against Boeing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0666zr4010o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0666zr4010o
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
knot4u
Repeat Offender
It's not negligent if it's intentional. Every cert holder from A/P to 121 pilot to 135 charter to 145 Repair Station to Manufacturer assumes the risk of criminal or civil liability based on their actions. Retaliating against folks who speak up about problems during the manufacture of something as complicated as an airliner to favor the stockholders profits and management salaries is intentional. There haven't been any specific charges yet so assuming it's criminal negligence seems presumptive. I told you folks a few months ago this was coming down the pike, if memory serves I was scolded by some folks here. Well, here you go...
Minuteman
I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING!
“Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care.”
My question is: how do we fix this?
In my opinion as I've stated many times before, this situation is the result of years of bad management. It's what happens when you blindly follow "shareholder value" trying to appease Wall Street in the short term timeframe with no regards for what happens next. By that point that manager, director, or c-suite has already been promoted for their "brilliant" idea and is never held accountable for the long term consequences of their decisions when the house of cards comes falling down. Boeing is the most blatant example but it's a style that's been rampant in corporate America for decades, just look at GE. You can tank an individual company and let it fail, but they'll just move on to their next victim after pulling their golden parachute. How do you discourage this type of behavior? From the supposed shakeup now at Boeing it all looks like smoke and mirrors but the root priorities don't seem to have changed. Just like Tommasi di Lampedusa said in the closing words of his novel The Leopard: "everything changes so that nothing changes". I don't personally have a good idea how to fix that toxic culture.
In my opinion as I've stated many times before, this situation is the result of years of bad management. It's what happens when you blindly follow "shareholder value" trying to appease Wall Street in the short term timeframe with no regards for what happens next. By that point that manager, director, or c-suite has already been promoted for their "brilliant" idea and is never held accountable for the long term consequences of their decisions when the house of cards comes falling down. Boeing is the most blatant example but it's a style that's been rampant in corporate America for decades, just look at GE. You can tank an individual company and let it fail, but they'll just move on to their next victim after pulling their golden parachute. How do you discourage this type of behavior? From the supposed shakeup now at Boeing it all looks like smoke and mirrors but the root priorities don't seem to have changed. Just like Tommasi di Lampedusa said in the closing words of his novel The Leopard: "everything changes so that nothing changes". I don't personally have a good idea how to fix that toxic culture.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Perhaps the workers, who have the most on the line, should own the means of production.
invadertim
In my experence, its always my fault.
Boeing pleads guilty to felony charge, many of the families of the victims are upset by the plea deal...
Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge over 737 Max crashes
Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge over 737 Max crashes
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I feel bad for the families. Truth is the pilots who flew the Lion Air the night before were able to fly it, use the cutout switches, and continue to Jakarta. And by the time Ethiopian happened, the entire world knew about MCAS. Reality is, these crashes shouldn’t have happened if they were more competent crews. That’s a tough pill for the families. Of course, the general stance is that dead men can’t defend themselves so go after Boeing.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
I am so tired of this viewpoint.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
But yet it’s true. The Lion Air flight the night prior had the same failure occur and the crew handled it. Granted, they had the advantage of a cockpit jumpseater who actually recognized the issue and told them to use the stab trim cutout switches.
Even then, I can understand Lion Air, it was the first the world had heard of MCAS. Then there was a bulletin that clearly explained MCAS, what it does, and what to do if it ever happens again.
In that regard, Ethiopian was inexcusable.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
What was the mx effort done, after said flight the night before, involved the crew throwing the stab cutout switches? Not trying to re-assign blame, but holy hell, that is not a normal write up. At all. If I saw that on a white page, with a "could not duplicate" or random "ran BIT test XYZ" I'd have serious reservations about flying it.......even if I'm not the guy who signs for it in this world.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
IIRC, the previous night Lion Air crew did not write it up appropriately. The MX fix they tried was a simple reset and sign off in the logbook. Had the inbound crew written up the plane better, in specific detail, it’s very likely that plane would have been grounded and not done that first flight of day (accident one).
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
But yet it is meaningless.
A fundamental system flaw cannot and should not (and spoiler alert, it isn't) be ignored under the lens of better crews who would have not crashed it when the evidence of this claim is already wrong with the Ethiopian crash.
Crews are trained for system failures and issues, to which these crews were. To assume they should fix a manufacturing defect because all pilots can is ridiculous.
CFIT99
I'm probably commenting ironically...
this aged poorly...but that's par for the course for CC
Boeing accepts a plea deal to avoid a criminal trial over 737 Max crashes, Justice Department says
The Justice Department says Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud charge stemming from two deadly crashes of 737 Max jetliners.
apnews.com