Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

Post by breatheoften » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #147

thaumasiotes wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, there as an argument that it is not good for Airbus at all because it will risk the stability of duopoly between Boing and Airbus. I like thinking about this in a sort of hypothetical Sparta. Sparta had two kings from two different royal lines. Suppose you're one of two kings, and the other royal line experiences some sort of dynastic hiccup. This inevitably happens to everyone. A popular strategy through…

We'd be a lot better off with a 3rd maker of large passenger aircraft. Duopolies are never good for the market, and markets seem to do a lot better when there's 3 dominant players: with only 3, the players have very good economies of scale, but because there's 3 (and not 1 or 2), there's still a good amount of competition, while still having a lot of stability, so it balances out. Too many competitors means too littl…

Post by vijayr02 » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

o-__-o wrote: post #154

vijayr02 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really interesting to me, how are the crash investigators able to pinpoint the exact cause of failure in such circumstances? I'd imagine a small piece of wire would be just another miniscule piece of debris at a crash site, and unlikely to still be in the location that caused the crash.

Starts with data logging, everything is logged. Then you inspect that area and look for anomalies in the metals in that area. At 5Gs, a little piece of wire becomes a razor blade and leaves evidence. A lot of odd nicks in an avionics bay will lead to testing, interviews and more testing. A worker has no reason to hide details, it would be criminal, so the interviews look at all the possible anomalies and then narrows…

Post by mopsi » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #141

mopsi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. Boeing, in contrast, uses simple radar altimeter. Whenever altitude reads 10 feet or less, the aircraft is considered to be "on ground" and things like thrust reversers become available. I personally avoid praising or preferring Airbus when…

Airbus has similar long-standing issues. On ground / airborne detection logic was broken in 1993 and is still broken in 2019, to a point that it can cause loss of flight controls. So you're claiming that Airbus knowingly leaves a critical defect in their planes, which may cause the loss of flight controls and which they refreain from fixing for almost 30 years? Either come up with a reliable source for this statement…

Post by jkachmar » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

vijayr02 wrote: post #173

o-__-o wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starts with data logging, everything is logged. Then you inspect that area and look for anomalies in the metals in that area. At 5Gs, a little piece of wire becomes a razor blade and leaves evidence. A lot of odd nicks in an avionics bay will lead to testing, interviews and more testing. A worker has no reason to hide details, it would be criminal, so the interviews look at all the possible anomalies and then narrows…

Thanks, yes, I've heard that NTSB crash reports are mind blowing in their attention to detail. A follow on question: how do they ensure people honestly answer questions, is the person not inviting personal liability by answering?

Post by acheron » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

madaxe_again wrote: post #81

vintagedave wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which contained levels of lead exceeding allowed levels... many of them targeted at children You know the catchphrase, "think of the children", often used to justify some kind of overreach? In this case, please, _think of the children_ and for the sake of us all, even anonymously, get that info to the media.

I’m sitting on the fence. In this case, they were very, very marginally over the allowed levels, and it was essentially down to a bug in the standard , which when implemented in software allowed a product to qualify for an exemption when it shouldn’t have. In this particular case the lead is all pretty well away from where the device comes in contact with the body, so the health risk is pretty minimal. It’s still in…