My understanding is they kept increasing the authority (how much stab movement it could command) in flight test to get the performance needed. So they can't just decrease the authority. The changes are taking a long time because they are having to completely rewrite the flight control software to fly using both computers. Also, aviation software requires a ton of testing and certification, not like the rest of the world where you can just roll out a weekly update.So why is it taking so long to achieve certification? I'd think they could have gone with the certified limited authority setup to get there.
My understanding is they kept increasing the authority (how much stab movement it could command) in flight test to get the performance needed. So they can't just decrease the authority. The changes are taking a long time because they are having to completely rewrite the flight control software to fly using both computers. Also, aviation software requires a ton of testing and certification, not like the rest of the world where you can just roll out a weekly update.
Working a lot of OT works better for auto manufacturing plants than airliners.Believe what you want. It is public information the system was certified as limited authority, but then changed to full authority without that change being recognized as significant. There is also zero evidence of any type of production failure leading to these accidents (or any other that I'm aware of anytime in recent history).
If you feel you're right, please provide some links showing that production issues in Renton had anything to do with these accidents.
I didn't say this was only common at Boeing, every manufacturing plant I've been around works a lot of OT when increasing rates or introducing a new model to the line. I also don't understand the massive concern about Boeing production issues, that have nothing to do with these accidents, while ignoring real contributing factors outside of Boeing.
I am saying there is zero evidence anything he was concerned about is in anyway related to any of these accidents or any other accident or major incident. He was also not the head of 737 Max production. I can't find a bio for him, but based on his age and 30 years of military experience, he was probably a short timer at Boeing.Working a lot of OT works better for auto manufacturing plants than airliners.
You watched that video right, of the guy who headed up Max 737 production? You are dismissing his concerns as utterly spurious? Evidently, yes.
There are stabilizer trim cut off switches, that if used would've stopped the stab movement and assuming it was engaged soon enough the plane would've remained flyable. I've heard, though, that the failure didn't present to the crew like a normal stab trim runaway, so there may have been confusion.Thank you. I also read that there was also a problem with turning it off should the pilots determine it's gone wonky. Dunno if that was training or control interface issues, or both.
Ah, well, given these facts I can see it's best to have a fatalistic attitude when flying. Que sera sera. What happened to the nut for that bolt? Well, fuck it. The other 5 should hold it. I'll get another and come back and fix that later. Did I grease that left strut? I must have, don't remember, must have. Did I inspect engine number 3's rotor? My mind's a blur... must have. I need another cup of coffee.I am saying there is zero evidence anything he was concerned about is in anyway related to any of these accidents or any other accident or major incident. He was also not the head of 737 Max production. I can't find a bio for him, but based on his age and 30 years of military experience, he was probably a short timer at Boeing.
If you are worried about OT and airliners, best not fly at all. I've done several 50+ hour shifts with mechanics as an airline engineer. Most of our best mechanics work 27 days a month (max per contract) averaging more than 12 hours a day. There are rest requirements for flight crew, basically nothing for ground crew. After 16 hours on the clock, mechanics start making double time so they do everything they can to not go off the clock once they get there.
From what someone on Twitter pointed out, it was likely a door that is supposed to be sealed at delivery. Seems like someone may have screwed up the sealing part...Damn, that plane that lost a window/side panel just entered service 2 months ago????
Can you imagine sitting in that seat when the wall just falls off?Almost 5 years later.. Boeing Max 737 still having problems..
Maybe they should have designed a new plane instead of cutting corners and jerry rigged planes and call it advancement.
Seems like someone may have screwed up the sealing part...
At this point Boeing would have been better off with a clean sheet design.
They should fire their whole QA group. Can't even make a secure cabin anymore.Man he fucked up. Prolly land a position in Trump's cabinet.
How hard would it be to make the sealing mechanism a contact that looped the entire plane, and a checklist item that just verified conduction across the entire circuit prior to releasing the plane from maintenance?Yeah just saw part of a conversation on CNN. Seems like it may be too early to pin this on Boeing. It wasn’t a normal exit door—it was a rear maintenance/service door that doesn’t actually function as an exit door when in service. So from the inside, it may have looked more like a regular window?
I guess after taking delivery, the airline and our third parties use that access to bring gear, seats, cabin livery etc. on board prior to entering the plane into service. Could be one of these contractors didn’t properly reseal it. Still, grounding the fleet seems to be the safe play for now—United and other airlines are going to follow suit.
^This. IIRC, the Max was an attempt at a quick response to the Airbus A320. All it did was show just how incompetent Boeing management had become. Kind of reminds me of what happened to Intel over the past decade.Almost 5 years later.. Boeing Max 737 still having problems..
Maybe they should have designed a new plane instead of cutting corners and jerry rigged planes and call it advancement.
Type C emergency door. Pretty sure the same installation is used on the -900 fleet which has been in service for ~20 years. So this was likely some type of quality or maintenance issue as opposed to design flaw or fatigue. Not that it makes the issue any betterDamn, that plane that lost a window/side panel just entered service 2 months ago????
Not sealed like that. A door like that has about 10,000 pounds of force trying to open it at attitude, sealant isn't holding it on. It's a functional emergency door that was covered up with Alaska's interior configuration. They are plug style doors meaning the pressure at altitude holds them closed and they have to move in against the pressure to open.From what someone on Twitter pointed out, it was likely a door that is supposed to be sealed at delivery. Seems like someone may have screwed up the sealing part...
Every door has at least 2 lock sensors that are supposed to show if the door isn't fully closed and lockedHow hard would it be to make the sealing mechanism a contact that looped the entire plane, and a checklist item that just verified conduction across the entire circuit prior to releasing the plane from maintenance?
But was this a door or just a 'panel'? I am curious what circumstances could lead to this falling off either way.Every door has at least 2 lock sensors that are supposed to show if the door isn't fully closed and locked
Type C emergency exit door that was deactivated, so it was just covered by an interior panel and just looked like a normal window.But was this a door or just a 'panel'? I am curious what circumstances could lead to this falling off either way.
Odds the sensors were deactivated since 'it's not a door anymore', and it was put on incorrectly?Type C emergency exit door that was deactivated, so it was just covered by an interior panel and just looked like a normal window.
When operating as a door it has to come in and up to get off it's stops, then open downwards (bottom hinge) and a slide opens.