Boeing employees mocked FAA in internal messages before 737 Max disasters

Post by rsynnott » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 1:10 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #31

admax88q wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably internal employees are familiar with the design process of planes. Or do you suspect they make statements like this for every plane during th early stages?

I have no idea. I doubt anybody commenting in this thread does either, given the complete lack of context. Given Boeing’s proven track record, you could potentially speculate that the comments are actually in reference to some serious failure. But the quote as it’s presented doesn’t provide any meaningful information.

Post by forgetfulusr » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 1:14 PM UTC

eldelshell wrote: post #119

theprop wrote: post #98

The McDonnell Douglas leadership seems to have put business ahead of engineering (and safety) at Boeing (from other pieces I've read). There are at present just two manufacturers of big planes in the world (China may have a third soon I believe) so it would be terrible for airline safety/efficiency if Boeing did go bankrupt (which is still unlikely) and left just one company with no competition. I think what we shoul…

Basically, aircrafts manufacturing is a duopoly: Airbus & Boeing. Isn't there enought market for these two as to not having to cut costs anywhere and airlines pony up with whatever price they set? I know we're talking big numbers here, but come on, Airbus can't produce enough aircrafts to satisfy 100% of the market, so why obsess with cost cutting in such ridiculous things like avionics or simulators?

Post by gmac » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #122

tigershark wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my back of the envelope calculations at the time of the second crash they had worse safety than a car. Did you run the actual numbers?

I'm confident I'm a safer driver than at least 50% of the people on the roads - if I thought pilots were only as safe as an average driver I'd be worried.

Post by jeffnappi » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

phire wrote: post #129

adwww wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The further down the PDF I go, the more I agree with you. Here's another one of his quotes: > There is absolutely no reason to require your pilots to require a Max simulator to begin flying the Max. Once the engines are started, there is only one difference between NG and Max procedurally, and that is that there is no OFF position of the gear handle. Boeing does not understand what is to be gained by a 3h simulator s…

This makes me angry. Not that 3 hours of simulator training would have helped in either crash. The problem wasn't that the ipad course was inadequate training for the new procedures (as he said there were no major procedural differences), but that any mention of MCAS had been removed from the manual to avoid needing new or modified procedures. Even worse, MCAS was designed to be near-impossible to override, using dat…

Post by adwww » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

phire wrote: post #129

adwww wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The further down the PDF I go, the more I agree with you. Here's another one of his quotes: > There is absolutely no reason to require your pilots to require a Max simulator to begin flying the Max. Once the engines are started, there is only one difference between NG and Max procedurally, and that is that there is no OFF position of the gear handle. Boeing does not understand what is to be gained by a 3h simulator s…

This makes me angry. Not that 3 hours of simulator training would have helped in either crash. The problem wasn't that the ipad course was inadequate training for the new procedures (as he said there were no major procedural differences), but that any mention of MCAS had been removed from the manual to avoid needing new or modified procedures. Even worse, MCAS was designed to be near-impossible to override, using dat…