Boeing Mega Troubles with its 737 MAX 8 Overriding Nose Dive Crashes [Archive]

Hervé

29th October 2018, 13:42

189 feared dead in first ever Boeing 737 MAX 8 crash in Indonesia (https://www.rt.com/news/442501-insonesia-plane-crash-lion-air/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/news/442501-insonesia-plane-crash-lion-air/)
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 02:09 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s24/494767/large/plane_crash.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/494767/full/plane_crash.jpg)
Workers of PT Pertamina examine recovered debris of what is believed to be from the crashed Lion Air flight JT610. © Reuters

A plane operated by the low-cost Indonesian airline Lion Air crashed while on a domestic flight from Jakarta. It's the first crash ever for Boeing's new 737 MAX 8 model.

"It has been confirmed that it has crashed," Yusuf Latif, a spokesman for the Indonesian rescue agency, said, as cited by Reuters. The plane was on its way from the Indonesian capital, Jakarta to the city of Pangkal Pinang on Sumatra, a flight slightly longer than an hour.

Latif said that the jet lost contact with air traffic control 13 minutes into the flight, and crashed into the sea.

The plane requested an emergency landing almost immediately after it took off, Sindu Rahayu of the Air Transportation Directorate General said at a press conference. He added that the authorities lost contact with the plane after the request.

The plane was packed with 189 passengers and crew, Indonesian National Search and Rescue Agency said (http://www.basarnas.go.id/artikel/lion-air-jt-610-boing-737-jatuh-kabasarnas-elt-tidak-terdeteksi-lut). At least 23 government officials were on board, Reuters reports.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1029692407561052160/51vvYn3__bigger.jpg Ahmer Murad (https://twitter.com/AhmerMurad)👓‏ @AhmerMurad (https://twitter.com/AhmerMurad)

According to FlightRadar24, it appears that #LionAir (https://twitter.com/hashtag/LionAir?src=hash) flight #JT610 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/JT610?src=hash) was just off the coast of Indonesia at an altitude of 3,650 ft when it lost contact.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqpJISqX4AAvK_c.jpg
7:40 PM - 28 Oct 2018
2 replies 17 retweets 9 likes Flight tracking service Flightradar24 says preliminary flight data shows a drop in the plane's altitude and increase in speed before the transmission was cut. The plane appears to have plunged into the sea just off the coast of Indonesia, data provided by the service shows. It was reportedly at an altitude of 3,650 feet (about 1,112m) when the signal was lost.

The plane was built recently, with about 800 flight hours, the head of Indonesia's national transportation safety committee (KNKT), Dr. Soerjanto Tjahjono, said. Lion Air has confirmed that the plane was airworthy and was piloted by an experienced crew. Its pilot and co-pilot had clocked in 11,000 flight hours together. The common number of flight hours for a pilot in a year is around 1,000.

The authorities will not speculate on the cause of the tragedy until the black box is retrieved and they receive a recording from an air traffic control post, Tjahjono said, as cited by The Strait Times.The newspaper reported that the plane could have carried about 20 Finance Ministry staff.

Debris from the plane, including seats, has been found floating in the Java sea near a facility belonging to state oil firm Pertamina, a company official told Reuters. Sailors on a nearby tugboat were reportedly the first witnesses of the crash.

A search and rescue operation has been launched, with divers sent to search for possible survivors in the submerged wreckage.

A video showing numerous vessels approaching the apparent crash site has been posted. No survivors can be seen in the footage.

The first images purportedly showing debris scattered in the sea have appeared on social media.

Photos circulating on social media also appear to show passenger belongings and torn pieces of the plane's fuselage recovered by the rescuers.

The plane had a "technical issue" on a previous flight, which "had been resolved according to procedure," Edward Sirait, the chief executive of Lion Air Group, said. However, he declined to specify the nature of the problem.

Flight JT610 is operated by a Boeing-737 Max 8, capable of seating up to 210 passengers. It is one of the newest Boeing models, which just entered service in May 2017. Flightradar24 says that the plane was delivered to Lion Air in August.

Comment: Soerjanto Thanjono, chief of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee, told reporters at a news briefing that the weather was sunny in the general area and had not been a problem, The New York Times reported (https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/indonesian-lion-air-passenger-plane/story-AiJ40woafaAOTiKnfyoO7H.html).

...

From Jim Stone:

Indonesian airline crash: (http://82.221.129.208/.ya4.html)

I moved my first post on this topic to the top because it is the most important post, the subsequent posts which are now below it explain the technical details and how it actually happened.

INDONESIAN AIR CRASH PROBABLE REMOTE HIJACK, VIDEO RECOVERED FROM WRECKAGE

An Indonesian lion air flight on a brand new 737 - 8 was likely remote hijacked and slammed into the ocean with 20 usury forbidding finance ministry officials aboard. The entire thing was captured on video by a passenger, including screaming engines, erratic flight, proof there was no on board hijacking and final full throttle death dive into the ocean that shattered the plane into tiny pieces. This video is speculated to have been recovered from an SD card in the debris by a tug boat crew and was promptly posted online. There is little question this was a remote hijacking to kill the finance ministry of Indonesia. The only question with this is how the video made it to the public, some people are speculating it was via the aircraft wifi and others are speculating it was taken from the debris and if so, I am speculating it was a tug boat crew that recovered it because they were the first on scene and would not have kept this hidden the way the FBI would have.

If you want to see the first recorded remote hijack destruction of a passenger jet to make it to the public, a video that the assassins without question never expected to have surface, (especially so quickly)

HERE IT IS, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg59d-RJg9g)this will likely be banned post haste, anyone who can save this SAVE IT.

To fully explain the Indonesian air line crash post below, and why it was a probable remote hijack:

If it was a wing flap or vertical stabilizer failure, the plane would have been turning as it crashed. It flew straight. It was therefore not a wing flap or vertical stabilizer problem. If it was a horizontal stabilizer problem, the plane would have either looped or nose dived to it's death instantly. It did not. it instead gained and lost elevation erratically. Therefore an actual problem with the horizontal stabilizer is unlikely. If the plane stalled it would not have smashed into a million pieces after descending many times free fall speed. It did smash into a million pieces after descending many times free fall speed. ANSWER THEN: FULL THROTTLE DIVE. Gee, how would that happen? Read the reports below!

Did You See Them

29th October 2018, 15:16

So the video was recovered from an sd card that was recovered from a phone from one of the passengers bodies and NOT uploaded whilst still in flight !
Seems very fortuitous and quick - rather like finding the passports from the 911 highjackers !

Hervé

28th November 2018, 18:14

Fatal flaw made Lion Air flight nosedive 20+ times before deadly crash in Indonesia, report finds (https://www.rt.com/news/445036-indonesia-boeing-crash-report/)

RT
Published time: 28 Nov, 2018 09:11
Get short URL (https://on.rt.com/9je4)

https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.11/article/5bfe582cfc7e9307498b457b.JPG
Captain Nurcahyo Utomo of the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee during a news conference in Jakarta, Indonesia. © Darren Whiteside / Reuters

Pilots of the Indonesian Lion Air flight desperately fought against a flaw in the packed Boeing 737 as faulty anti-stall sensors repeatedly sent the plane nosediving before it plunged into the Java Sea, the investigation shows.

The angle-of-attack (AOA) sensors measure how well the plane’s nose is positioned against the oncoming air. During the journey of Lion Air Flight 610, the sensors malfunctioned, automatically pushing the aircraft’s nose down two dozen times in the span of just 10 minutes, the preliminary report of Indonesia’s National Transport Safety Committee (KNKT) found.

Each time the flawed system directed the plane downwards, the pilots had to struggle, manually pushing the nose back up again. “The pilots fought continuously until the end of the flight,” Captain Nurcahyo Utomo of the KNKT said.

The doomed plane suffered the same sensor malfunction during a previous flight, but that time the crew solved the problem by switching the system off early in the trip. The officials noted (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-crash-flight/indonesia-says-lion-air-jet-not-airworthy-on-flight-before-crash-idUSKCN1NX0D2) that the aircraft was “not airworthy.”

https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.11/original/5bfe5a46fc7e93a84a8b4579.JPG
A turbine engine of the crashed Lion Air flight 610 is being lifted at in Jakarta, Indonesia. © Beawiharta / Reuters

The Boeing 737 Max 8 jet crashed into the Java Sea on October 29 shortly after takeoff from the airport in the nation’s capital of Jakarta, killing all 189 people on board.

The preliminary report relies on data recovered from the plane’s onboard flight recorder. The cockpit voice recorder, however, is still to be located, so it is too early to determine the exact causes of the crash, Indonesian state investigators stressed.
They also asked Lion Air to update its operational manuals in order to improve the airline’s “safety culture.”

The disaster in Indonesia raised questions on whether Boeing’s newest 737 Max series truly lives up to its previously flawless safety record. Following the crash, the company issued an operational bulletin, directing pilots on how to deal with “erroneous input” from the sensors.

The warning was followed by the US Federal Aviation Administration, which sent out its own emergency directive on Boeing’s best-selling 737 Max series. It alerted the airlines that “erroneous input” from the plane’s AOA sensors “can potentially make the horizontal stabilizers repeatedly pitch the nose of the airplane downward.”

Related:
MAXimized danger: Are 200+ new Boeing 737s plagued with glitch that led to crash in Indonesia? (https://www.rt.com/news/443615-737-problem-sensor-experts/)

Bill Ryan

28th November 2018, 18:40

So the video was recovered from an SD card that was recovered from a phone from one of the passengers bodies and NOT uploaded whilst still in flight !
Seems very fortuitous and quick - rather like finding the passports from the 911 highjackers !

Just a note for the record. The video is here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg59d-RJg9g), but multiple YouTube commenters have pointed out that

It's from a different flight (where there was severe turbulence, but no crash)
The wings are a different color
Oxygen masks were deployed, which wouldn't have happened at a low altitude.

:focus:

Hervé

17th March 2019, 17:28

The Best Analysis Of What Really Happened To The Boeing 737 Max From A Pilot & Software Engineer (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-17/best-analysis-what-really-happened-boeing-737-max-pilot-software-engineer)

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/picture-5.jpg?itok=LY4e264- (https://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden) by Tyler Durden (https://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden)
Sun, 03/17/2019 - 11:55

The following tweets from Trevor Sumner, CEO of Perch Experience, of what really happened to the Boeing 737 Max, may be one of the best summaries of the events that led to the two recent airplane crashes, and also why Boeing's "software upgrade" response is a farce.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/979825757785657344/MBdCY9OR_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Trevor Sumner @trevorsumner
(https://twitter.com/trevorsumner)
1of x: BEST analysis of what really is happening on the #Boeing737Max (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Boeing737Max?src=hash) issue from my brother in law @davekammeyer (https://twitter.com/davekammeyer), who’s a pilot, software engineer & deep thinker. Bottom line don’t blame software that’s the band aid for many other engineering and economic forces in effect.

2,642 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1106934362531155974)
5:04 PM - Mar 16, 2019 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974) · Brooklyn, NY (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3A011add077f4d2da3)
1,879 people are talking about this
(https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/979825757785657344/MBdCY9OR_bigger.jpg Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974)

1of x: BEST analysis of what really is happening on the #Boeing737Max (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Boeing737Max?src=hash) issue from my brother in law @davekammeyer (https://twitter.com/davekammeyer), who’s a pilot, software engineer & deep thinker. Bottom line don’t blame software that’s the band aid for many other engineering and economic forces in effect.

55 replies 2,011 retweets 2,904 likes

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/979825757785657344/MBdCY9OR_bigger.jpg Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner)

Some people are calling the 737MAX tragedies a #software (https://twitter.com/hashtag/software?src=hash) failure. Here's my response: It's not a software problem. It was an * Economic problem that the 737 engines used too much fuel, so they decided to install more efficient engines with bigger fans and make the 737MAX.

8:04 AM - 16 Mar 2019 from Brooklyn, NY (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3A011add077f4d2da3)
22 replies 354 retweets 562 likes

New conversation
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/979825757785657344/MBdCY9OR_bigger.jpg Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16
(https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934370823258112)
This led to an * Airframe problem. They wanted to use the 737 airframe for economic reasons, but needed more ground clearance with bigger engines.The 737 design can't be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount them higher & more forward.

1 reply 38 retweets 152 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934381573275649)

This led to an * Aerodynamic problem. The airframe with the engines mounted differently did not have adequately stable handling at high AoA to be certifiable. Boeing decided to create the MCAS system to electronically correct for the aircraft's handling deficiencies.

3 replies 43 retweets 162 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934383825612800)

During the course of developing the MCAS, there was a * Systems engineering problem. Boeing wanted the simplest possible fix that fit their existing systems architecture, so that it required minimal engineering rework, and minimal new training for pilots and maintenance crews.

2 replies 36 retweets 159 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934387516542988)

The easiest way to do this was to add some features to the existing Elevator Feel Shift system. Like the #EFS (https://twitter.com/hashtag/EFS?src=hash) system, the #MCAS (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MCAS?src=hash) relies on non-redundant sensors to decide how much trim to add. Unlike the EFS system, MCAS can make huge nose down trim changes.

3 replies 36 retweets 147 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934393531183104)

On both ill-fated flights, there was a: * Sensor problem. The AoA vane on the 737MAX appears to not be very reliable and gave wildly wrong readings. On #LionAir (https://twitter.com/hashtag/LionAir?src=hash), this was compounded by a

2 replies 32 retweets 143 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934409826058240)

* Maintenance practices problem. The previous crew had experienced the same problem and didn't record the problem in the maintenance logbook. This was compounded by a:

1 reply 31 retweets 132 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934413210849280)

* Pilot training problem. On LionAir, pilots were never even told about the MCAS, and by the time of the Ethiopian flight, there was an emergency AD issued, but no one had done sim training on this failure. This was compounded by an:

1 reply 34 retweets 144 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934415610073091)

* Economic problem. Boeing sells an option package that includes an extra AoA vane, and an AoA disagree light, which lets pilots know that this problem was happening. Both 737MAXes that crashed were delivered without this option. No 737MAX with this option has ever crashed.

17 replies 66 retweets 232 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934418042769408)

All of this was compounded by a: * Pilot expertise problem. If the pilots had correctly and quickly identified the problem and run the stab trim runaway checklist, they would not have crashed.

6 replies 32 retweets 146 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934422249582593)

Nowhere in here is there a software problem. The computers & software performed their jobs according to spec without error. The specification was just ****ty. Now the quickest way for Boeing to solve this mess is to call up the software guys to come up with another band-aid.

19 replies 83 retweets 303 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934425449873408)

I'm a software engineer, and we're sometimes called on to fix the deficiencies of mechanical or aero or electrical engineering, because the metal has already been cut or the molds have already been made or the chip has already been fabed, and so that problem can't be solved.

4 replies 51 retweets 267 likes

Trevor Sumner‏ @trevorsumner (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner) Mar 16 (https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934429514125321)

But the software can always be pushed to the update server or reflashed. When the software band-aid comes off in a 500mph wind, it's tempting to just blame the band-aid. Follow @davekammeyer (https://twitter.com/davekammeyer) if you want to dig in.

28 replies 78 retweets 520 likes

Hervé

17th March 2019, 17:50

Ethiopian Airlines crash: What we know about the Boeing 737 MAX tragedy and what comes next (https://www.firstpost.com/world/ethiopian-airlines-crash-what-we-know-about-the-boeing-737-max-tragedy-and-what-comes-next-6275191.html)

World (https://www.firstpost.com/category/world) Reuters (https://www.firstpost.com/author/reuters) Mar 17, 2019 09:38:48 IST

Reuters: More than 300 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9 passenger jets around the world have been taken out of service following two fatal crashes over the past five months in Ethiopia (https://www.firstpost.com/world/ethiopian-airlines-plane-crash-kills-all-157-on-board-including-4-indians-narendra-modi-expresses-condolences-6231501.html) and Indonesia (https://www.firstpost.com/world/indonesia-lion-air-flight-crash-all-189-passengers-crew-on-board-feared-dead-says-search-and-rescue-agency-5466181.html)that killed almost 350 people in all.

The causes of both crashes are still under investigation (https://www.firstpost.com/business/airlines-fear-long-grounding-of-boeing-737-max-jets-after-ethiopian-crash-6271411.html). One of the biggest unanswered questions: Was the plane’s software to blame?

What we know
— Boeing has stopped delivery of all new MAX jets to its customers.

— Satellite data gathered from the Ethiopian Airlines flight and evidence from the crash site showed similarities with a Lion Air accident in Indonesia, which prompted the US Federal Aviation Administration to ground all Boeing MAX jets in service.

https://images.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ethiopian-airlines-plane-reuters.jpg

Representational image. Reuters

— Investigators have found a piece of a stabiliser in the wreckage of the Ethiopian jet with the trim set in an unusual position similar to that of the Lion Air plane, two sources familiar with the matter said.

— The pilot of the Ethiopian Airlines flight had reported internal control problems and received permission to return. The pilot of the Lion Air flight had also asked to return not long after taking off from Jakarta.

— Technical analysis of the black boxes from the crashed Ethiopian Airlines jet is underway in France. It will take several days to complete the first readings from the boxes, French aviation officials said. The US National Transportation Safety Board is sending investigators to assist and an Ethiopian team arrived in Paris on Friday.

— The Ethiopian Airlines plane requested permission to return to Addis Ababa airport three minutes after takeoff as it accelerated to abnormal speed, the New York Times reported.

— Indonesia plans to move up by about a month the release of an investigation report on the Lion Air crash, which killed all 189 on board, its transport safety committee said on Friday. It now plans to release the report between July and August, ahead of its previous schedule of between August and September.

— Following the Lion Air crash in October, Boeing said it was preparing a software upgrade for the jets. After the Ethiopia crash, the company said it would deploy that upgrade across the fleet in the coming weeks.

— Boeing maintains its new, fuel-efficient jets are safe, but supported the FAA decision to ground them. Fearing a financial hit and brand damage, investors have wiped about $26 billion off the company’s market value.

— US lawmakers said the planes could be grounded for weeks to upgrade the software and install it in every plane.

— Boeing plans to release upgraded software for its 737 MAX in a week to 10 days, sources familiar with the matter said on 16 March.

— No lawsuits have been filed since the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, but some plaintiffs’ lawyers said they expect that Boeing will be sued in the United States.
What's next?
— Investigators are expected to release a preliminary report based on information they glean from the data and cockpit recordings captured by the two black boxes.

— Ethiopian Airlines said on 16 March that DNA testing of the remains of the passengers may take up to six months.

— A decision will be made by countries about whether and when to lift the grounding of the Boeing jets based on that information.

Cardillac

17th March 2019, 18:57

I think we can all assume someone on this flight was highly controversial and needed to be eliminated (at the expense of other innocent passengers)- but WHO?-

any answers anyone?

Larry

Bill Ryan

17th March 2019, 19:06

I think we can all assume someone on this flight was highly controversial and needed to be eliminated (at the expense of other innocent passengers)- but WHO?-

any answers anyone?

Larry

Well, it was an accident (in fact, two of them, seemingly nearly identical, plus at least one near miss with tragedy avoided by the pilots), caused by something VERY badly wrong tangled up in a complex series of factors that just hadn't been anticipated or planned for. But the culpability is clearly with Boeing.

The Zero Hedge article Hervé posted above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104852-Flight-JT610-on-a-Boeing-737-MAX-8-Crashed-in-Indonesia-2018-10-28&p=1281345#post1281345), featuring a concise step-by-step analysis by Trevor Sumner, seems really pretty compelling.

ThePythonicCow

17th March 2019, 20:01

The following tweets from Trevor Sumner, CEO of Perch Experience, of what really happened to the Boeing 737 Max, may be one of the best summaries of the events that led to the two recent airplane crashes, and also why Boeing's "software upgrade" response is a farce.

This led to an * Airframe problem. They wanted to use the 737 airframe for economic reasons, but needed more ground clearance with bigger engines.The 737 design can't be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount them higher & more forward. 28 replies 78 retweets 520 likes

The following LA Times article does a good, clear, job of explaining the problems with putting larger engines on the 737, which has its engines unusually close to the ground:
How a 50-year-old design came back to haunt Boeing with its troubled 737 Max jet (https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-fi-boeing-max-design-20190315-story.html)

Bill Ryan

17th March 2019, 22:05

Bill Ryan

17th March 2019, 22:29

I've been reading the very interesting 70+ comments, too.

My favorite so far: :)
Everyone is anxiously awaiting the introduction of self-driving cars. What could go wrong?

Bill Ryan

17th March 2019, 22:43

I've been reading the very interesting 70+ comments, too.

My favorite so far: :)
Everyone is anxiously awaiting the introduction of self-driving cars. What could go wrong?

And maybe the most thought-provoking one:

We are entering the era of the robots being allowed to kill us in the name of progress. It is true that aircraft fatalities over the last 20 years have sharply declined and it is also true that automation is the main reason why. The robots are smarter than we are, except when they're not.

And that's when we die so that they can get better. Same thing is going on with driverless cars. Once that technology is perfected, roadway fatalities will plummet. But to get to that point, we are going to kill people to get the bugs ironed out. Welcome to the modern world.

Didgevillage

6th May 2019, 12:46

Just a software failure?
Give me a break. The design of the whole plane was flawed.

If it's just a software issue, how come all these planes are grounded for so long (with nothing being done to them)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc

Didgevillage

6th May 2019, 18:52

I watched Australian "60 minutes" and posted it above. The popular program in Australia repeatedly stressed "software failure" which I found very suspicious.

But today Jim Stone has this to say (jimstone.is):

"Interesting: After 737 fiasco, Boeing is replacing human workers with robots.
I still strongly suspect the planes went down because the fuselage failed. That would trick a sensor into believing the plane was at the wrong pitch (when it bent)
Remember, the original reports out of Ethiopia said the plane was dropping papers and clothes before it hit. That would mean the fuselage failed. The masks would not have deployed because in both cases the plane was low enough, and there was not enough time for the pilots to figure out what really happened. But Boeing probably knows. There's no way out of this no matter how much it is denied and not reported. If it was dropping stuff on the way down, it crashed due to fuselage failure, PERIOD. How would a "level sensor" deal with having it's reference - the fuselage - crack open and bend? What is a "level sensor" going to do when it's reference is off? Obviously it will try to change the elevation of the plane as the broken fuselage flaps up and down, giving it an ever changing reference. And that's the only way the plane could have been dropping clothes and papers before it hit the ground, which witnesses on the ground said happened.
And Boeing is, as a result, going to replace human workers with machines. Not 50 workers, or a few hundred, THOUSANDS. Why would they do that? Here's a reason: because despite all the little check boxes on paper - ensuring the fuselage went together right - it did not go together right.

I think they are doing this because the workers screwed up the construction process, and they know it. And like I said during my original Boeing rip, it was immigrant workers that did that particular version of the 737.

QUESTION: What would a liberal scum bag do to avoid having to bring back a work force that was ALL WHITE with ZERO third world immigrants, to avoid having another disaster product? They hate whitie, plus can never admit they were wrong, so robots it will be."

onevoice

28th June 2019, 20:09

There has been several reports that another defect in the Boeing 737 MAX has been discovered by FAA. It appears that Boeing's trouble with 737 MAX won't end anytime soon (https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761434/737-max-new-flaw-cancellation-extended-southwest-united-airlines-faa). Southwest and United Airlines will extend 737 MAX flights cancellations. It's incredible to me how Boeing was able to get away with certifying 737 MAX as safe when it at least knew about the MCAS problems long ago. Like many other federal agencies, FAA seems compromised as well and not always serving the public's interest.

A software fix has been ready for months, though the FAA had not yet flight-tested Boeing’s solution. But this week, the FAA discovered another potential flaw in the 737 Max’s computer system. The agency found that “data processing by a flight computer on the jetliner could cause the plane to dive in a way that pilots had difficulty recovering from in simulator tests,” according to Bloomberg.

onevoice

29th June 2019, 04:35

Boeing's trouble keeps growing with their newer planes. The Seattle Times is reporting that the DOJ is expanding its probe of the 737 MAX to include the 787 Dreamliner (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/federal-prosecutors-issue-subpoena-for-boeing-787-dreamliner-records/). I've read of many Boeing personnel reporting subpar work being performed on the 787 Dreamliner plane around the time of the Ethiopian Airline accident.

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records from Boeing relating to the production of the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, where there have been allegations of shoddy work, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

DOJ probe expands beyond Boeing 737 MAX, includes 787 Dreamliner
https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/06282019_787-roll_162604-768x447.jpg
Visitors, executives and some of the 6,000 factory workers watch as the first 787 Dreamliner assembled at Boeing’s factory in... (Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times)

By Steve Miletich
Seattle Times staff reporter

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records from Boeing relating to the production of the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, where there have been allegations of shoddy work, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The subpoena was issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the sources said. DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation into the certification and design of the 737 MAX after two deadly crashes of that jetliner.

The 787 subpoena significantly widens the scope of the DOJ’s scrutiny of safety issues at Boeing.

The two sources who revealed the subpoena spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the inquiries.

A third source said a handful of subpoenas were issued in early June to individual employees at Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner production plant in North Charleston, South Carolina.

DOJ spokesman Peter Carr, in Washington, D.C., declined to comment Friday. A Boeing spokesman said, “We don’t comment on legal matters.”

It wasn’t clear if the subpoena served on the company was issued by the same prosecutors overseeing the 737 MAX investigation. But the third source, also speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the inquiries, said the subpoenas to employees at the South Carolina plant came from the “same group” of prosecutors involved in the 737 MAX investigation, including DOJ trial attorneys Cory Jacobs and Carol Sipperly in the Fraud Section.

Boeing divides its Dreamliner production between the South Carolina assembly plant, which rolled out its first plane in 2012 (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/south-carolina-is-ambitious-for-more-boeing-work/), and the sprawling Everett facility where it has built jets for decades. The 737 MAX is built in Renton.

Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have been looking into the development of the 737 MAX, including a new flight-safety control system known as MCAS (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/), after one crash on Oct. 29 off Indonesia and another in Ethiopia on March 10. Those disasters killed 346 people and led to worldwide grounding of the plane.

The grand-jury investigation into the MAX has been cloaked in secrecy, but some of the Justice Department’s activities have become known as prosecutors issued subpoenas for documents. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General and the FBI are working with the DOJ.

A Seattle Times story in March detailed how Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed its engineers to delegate more of the certification process for the 737 MAX to Boeing itself. The Times story also detailed flaws in an original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA.

Allegations relating to the 787 Dreamliner have centered on shoddy work and cutting corners at the company’s South Carolina plant.

The grand-jury investigation into the MAX has been cloaked in secrecy, but some of the Justice Department’s activities have become known as prosecutors issued subpoenas for documents. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General and the FBI are working with the DOJ.

A Seattle Times story (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/) in March detailed how Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed its engineers to delegate more of the certification process for the 737 MAX to Boeing itself. The Times story also detailed flaws in an original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA.

While there are differences in the 737 and 787 matters, prosecutors are likely looking into whether broad cultural problems run throughout the company, according to the third source and a person in South Carolina, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter.

That could include pressure to sign off on faulty work to avoid delays in delivering planes to customers, the source said.

The New York Times reported in April (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/business/boeing-dreamliner-production-problems.html) that the North Charleston plant has been plagued by production issues and weak oversight that threatened to compromise safety.

Production ran years behind schedule, due to manufacturing and supplier problems, before the plane entered service in 2011.

The newspaper, citing a review of hundreds of pages of internal emails, corporate documents and federal records, as well as interviews with current and former employees, described a culture that often valued production speed over quality. Confronting manufacturing delays at the plant, Boeing pushed its workforce to quickly turn out Dreamliners, at times ignoring issues raised by employees, the newspaper reported.

The Dreamliner, introduced in 2007 and billed as Boeing’s most important new plane in a generation, featured lightweight carbon-fiber fuselage and advanced technology.

Initially assembled just in Everett, it was popular with airlines, prompting Boeing to break ground on a second Dreamliner plant in 2009 in South Carolina, which has the lowest percentage of union members of any state in the country.

Last year (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-re-creating-local-plants-in-sc/) the Everett plant produced 55% of the 145 Dreamliners that Boeing delivered, while the South Carolina factory delivered the rest. The biggest 787, the -10 model, is assembled only in South Carolina.

The entire fleet was grounded in January 2013 after two battery-overheating incidents: a battery fire on an empty 787 parked at the gate at Boston airport, then a smoldering battery on a flight in Japan that forced an emergency landing. The FAA lifted the grounding in April 2013 after Boeing modified the jets with beefed-up batteries, containment boxes and venting tubes.

In the 737 MAX investigation, prosecutors appear to be getting information from someone with inside knowledge of the plane’s development based on the questions they are asking, the third source said.

That investigation was opened after the first crash, a highly unusual step for prosecutors after one crash, prompting speculation that someone had come forward with information, the source said.

Still, prosecutors appear to be trying to figure out whether a crime occurred, given the general scope of their questions, the source said.

Prosecutors will be looking for any evidence of the “hallmarks of classic fraud” — misrepresentation to federal regulators and customers, one of the sources said, comparing the investigation to the Justice Department’s probe of Volkswagen that led to criminal charges in an emissions scandal.

In 2017, Volkswagen pleaded guilty to three criminal felony counts and agreed to pay a $2.8 billion criminal penalty as a result of the company’s scheme to sell diesel vehicles in the U.S. by cheating on emissions tests mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Boeing has not been charged with any crime related to the 737 crashes or the 787 production.

Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302 or smiletich@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @stevemiletich.

BMJ

10th August 2019, 12:57

Report: Boeing 787 Code Left Unprotected on Public Server
A new report by Wired Magazine revealed that Boeing accidentally left important code for its 737 and 787 aircraft on a publicly accessible server.

Quote:
"Cybersecurity expert Ruben Santamarta of Madrid claims that he was able to access code designed to run the 737 and 787 Boeing airliners. According to a report by Wired Magazine, Santamarta found important code for Boeing’s aircraft on an unprotected server on the company’s network, available to anyone and not requiring special access to read.

Santamarta claims that the code reveals a security flaw in the 787 Dreamliner line. According to Santamarta, this security flaw could potentially allow a hacker to access the flight control system."

Link: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/09/report-boeing-787-code-left-unprotected-on-public-server/

Hervé

10th August 2019, 13:12

^^^

... why did I immediately thought that the above is a controlled leak so as to blame the software developers and redirect attention away from technical, engineering defects... see this article (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104852-Boeing-Mega-Troubles-with-its-737-MAX-8-Overriding-Nose-Dive-Crashes&p=1281329&viewfull=1#post1281329) (<---)

amor

10th August 2019, 19:55

I am glad of the opportunity to make a statement about the Boeing Max 8 and 9 and their quick fix design failure, quick switch and refix with computer software. If that software can EVER FAIL, which it can, especially mounted outside where lightening and weather can kill it, pilot oversight can fail to monitor and respond to it, etc., it should not be the way to fix an OBVIOUS FIXUP AERONAUTICAL DESIGN WHICH IS FAULTY. THE PLANES SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF USE BEFORE THEY KILL EVERYONE AND BRING DOWN BOEING FOR GOOD AND EVER. A stitch in time is required, because if they keep on with the fix..a...fix..a..fix, they are going to fix themselves out of business forever. This, in the slim hope that the head brass at Boeing will see it.

Ron Mauer Sr

10th August 2019, 20:05

onevoice

11th August 2019, 01:13

Software development for aviation must be tested and verified in compliance with DO-178. The FAA must approve the facility developing the software. Verification should be vigorous by actual testing when possible or by code inspections (not preferred). An update to software has the potential to crash the system dependent upon how robust the software has been designed.

As a Software Quality Assurance Engineer, for two different manufacturers, I have witnessed the pressure for shipping incompletely tested software many times, although no mission critical problems were known.

Management wanted me to be an insulator for them. They did not want to be accountable if something went wrong. Yet management would sometimes authorize shipment because the software had to be installed before a ship left port.

Comments I've heard in team meetings by Program Managers:
"Ship the software anyway and let the customer pay to fix the problems."
"If you do not sign approval you will force the engineers to work through the Christmas holidays."
"You are not a team player."

It was a stressful job. Walking back to my desk, I asked myself a question. "Why have I chosen this experience?"

Immediately I heard an inner voice, "To learn how to deal with powerful people."

If there are any Quality Assurance people here, always keep good records. Sometimes the best one can do is put "Approved pending resolution of identified issues." The Quality Assurance role is to identify and report problems. Only management can authorize expenditures to fix the problems. Quality Assurance cannot fix the problems.
OK I am off my soap box. Sometimes the unpleasant memories surface.

I expect this kind of a problem is almost everywhere.

Hey, Ron Mauer Sr, it seems we shared common career track. My first two professional roles as a Software Engineer was Independent Verification and Validation agent to monitor and provide overall quality review of various programs at Lockheed (before it merged to become Lockheed Martin). Few years after that job, I joined Lockheed to become Software Quality Assurance Engineer. My job was to participate in software review of various software modules that were being developed for the Navy for their Track and Control part of the Cruise Missiles systems that were deployed on all the USS Iowa class battleships, such as USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, etc.

Working as a civilian contractor for the military, we were never rushed for schedule. We always had the proper time to make any necessary reviews. In my first career position as IV&V, I was able to see overall program perspective as the program went through its various lifecycles.

Since I knew how to read the software listing, there were a few times I pointed out software errors I caught, but most of my inputs dealt with ensuring that the software developer adhered to the required military software development standards. Later on, I developed software to analyze the program software developer's code and provide reports that analyzed the complexity of logic implemented in a software module as well as few aspects of applicable military software development standards. Since there were thousands of software modules to review and we didn't have time to review every module, the logic complexity analyzer I wrote helped my department to focus our efforts on reviewing the software that implemented the most complex logic structures.

Hervé

12th August 2019, 15:40

Brand new Boeing plane literally falls apart over Rome: Engine fails, breaks off and rains debris on people, homes and vehicles (https://www.rt.com/news/466324-norwegian-plane-rome-engine/)

RT (https://www.rt.com/news/466324-norwegian-plane-rome-engine/)
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:29 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s26/533802/large/NINTCHDBPICT000513024637.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/533802/full/NINTCHDBPICT000513024637.jpg)
© Il Messaggero

A Norwegian Air Boeing 787 plane was forced to turn around in Rome and make an emergency landing after engine failure caused hundreds of fragments to rain down on vehicles, homes and people below.

One person, 25 vehicles and 12 houses were struck by fragments falling from the Dreamliner flight DY-7115 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dy7115#21a42f96) from Rome to Los Angeles. Pilots declared an emergency when it suffered single-engine failure at 3,000 feet shortly after takeoff on Saturday, and returned to Rome's Fiumicino Airport 23 minutes after departure with 310 passengers and crew on board. There were no reported injuries.

However, eyewitness reports of hundreds of pieces of hot debris raining down on the area surrounding the airport soon emerged. Images of smashed windscreens, damaged roofs and other objects in people's gardens were shared online. One person received mild burns from the falling pieces, according to Italian media.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1044957807815131136/k4diZYbX_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/breakingavnews) Breaking Aviation News @breakingavnews
(https://twitter.com/breakingavnews)
Norwegian 787 engine failure debris causes damage to cars shortly after takeoff from Roma-Fiumicino Airport. http://breakingavnews.com/2019/08/10/fragments-of-a-norwegian-boeing-787-fall-on-fiumicino-damage-but-no-casualties/ … (https://t.co/T5ezjpdUbF)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBorEhfWwAAbeAP?format=jpg&name=360x360 (https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/1160287213701214210/photo/1) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBorEhgWwAEI9SE?format=jpg&name=360x360 (https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/1160287213701214210/photo/1)

10:30 PM - Aug 10, 2019 (https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/status/1160287213701214210)
https://www.sott.net/image/s26/533801/large/5d51690adda4c80f098b456c.png (https://www.sott.net/image/s26/533801/full/5d51690adda4c80f098b456c.png)
© Flight24

Esterino Montino
on Saturday (https://www.facebook.com/senatoremontino/posts/2482991381761662)
Intorno alle 16.40 di oggi un aereo in decollo dall'aeroporto Leonardo da Vinci ha avuto un'avaria ed è dovuto rientrare. Durante l'avaria, però, ha perso dei pezzi metallici che sono caduti a grande velocità al suolo, all'altezza di via Mariotti a Isola Sacra.
Cadendo, questi frammenti hanno colpito macchine in sosta, tende da giardino e altri oggetti, danneggiandoli.
Sul posto si sono recati gli agenti della Polizia Locale, della Polizia di Stato, dei Carabinieri, i Vigili ...
See More (https://www.facebook.com/senatoremontino/posts/2482991381761662)

https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x296/67788586_2482990621761738_2952326704992878592_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQl0FWej7SVWfQntgd-f2IWtzl5wAkw3aghP_dDklvwb8fLVsb2T3DpAwCJH3HiIePw&_nc_ht=scontent-cdg2-1.xx&oh=9ed8094ddffdd279dd6efbb5eac67ac1&oe=5DEBE3B6

https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x296/69220265_2482990908428376_5830723339055792128_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQn1tbFgi_NRfXR_lHfsXwqYQmlleKFRL1fcj-XztrJrBPqobtnOjXZX-w25awXOHlQ&_nc_ht=scontent-cdg2-1.xx&oh=c3e2e89820bfededbde64c3f599123c1&oe=5DDD6B24

Passengers on board the flight told La Repubblica (https://video.repubblica.it/edizione/roma/fiumicino-boeing-787-perde-pezzi-in-volo-il-passeggero-abbiamo-sentito-i-botti-anche-le-gomme-sono-esplose/341452/342042?ref=search) that "worrying noises" came from the engine 10 minutes after takeoff and, upon landing, the plane's tires were also burst.

The incident could have had potentially disastrous and fatal consequences if the plane had continued for "a few more moments," when it would have reached the center of town "or the crowded beaches of the Roman coast," reported Corriere Della Sela (https://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/19_agosto_10/frammenti-aereo-cadono-fiumicino-problema-motore-7032f0ea-bb8f-11e9-9f76-c4a17a124b8d.shtml).

Passengers criticized (https://twitter.com/jessrrivera/status/1160278437183053826) the low-budget Oslo-based airline for failing to provide information following the incident, and for leaving hundreds "abandoned (https://twitter.com/SofiaKirchen/status/1160284886529400837)" at the Rome airport without their luggage.

Italy's aviation safety agency (ANSV) has launched an investigation into the five-year-old Boeing 787-8 plane and it's Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine, to determine what caused such a dangerous malfunction.

DbCSryxw-Fc

onevoice

23rd September 2019, 16:50

Here is a recent news update regarding the Boeing 737 MAX 8 saga. It's likely that this plane won't fly again until well into next year. Also other nation's aviation regulators want to ensure flight simulator training for all 737 MAX 8 pilots, which FAA seems to be hesitant to mandate.

Wall Street Journal link (https://www.wsj.com/articles/indonesia-to-fault-737-max-design-u-s-oversight-in-lion-air-crash-report-11569185664?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2)
Indonesia to Fault 737 MAX Design, U.S. Oversight in Lion Air Crash Report
First formal government finding on crash also likely to detail pilot and maintenance missteps; NTSB preparing separate safety recommendations
https://images.wsj.net/im-109780?width=740&size=1.5
Indonesian officials have found design and oversight lapses played a central role in October’s Lion Air crash. Above, wreckage from Lion Air flight JT610, Karawang, Nov. 3, 2018. PHOTO: ANTARA FOTO/JAYA KUSUMA/REUTERS

By Andy Pasztor and Andrew Tangel
Sept. 22, 2019 4:54 pm ET

Indonesian investigators have determined that design and oversight lapses played a central role in the fatal crash of a Boeing 737 MAX jet in October, according to people familiar with the matter, in what is expected to be the first formal government finding of fault.

The draft conclusions, these people said, also identify a string of pilot errors and maintenance mistakes as causal factors in the fatal plunge of the Boeing Co. plane into the Java Sea, echoing a preliminary report from Indonesia last year.

Misfires of an automated flight-control feature called MCAS on the MAX fleet led to the nosedive of the Lion Air jet and a similar crash of an Ethiopian Airlines MAX shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa in March. The two crashes took 346 lives, prompted the grounding of all 737 MAX planes and disrupted the global aviation industry.

Details of the Indonesian report, which haven’t been reported previously, are subject to change and further analysis. Indonesian investigators declined to comment, except to say the final document is likely to come out in early November.
A Boeing spokesman said the plane maker continues to work with Indonesian authorities as they complete the report.

U.S. air-crash investigators are preparing to make public a handful of separate safety recommendations, ranging from bolstering the manual flying skills of pilots to enhancing FAA vetting of new aircraft designs.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is expected around the end of the month to call for improvements to cockpit training and crew decision making, according to industry and government officials.

The goal is to ensure pilot proficiency when automated systems are malfunctioning or turned off, to help ensure appropriate responses to contradictory cockpit warnings such as those that occurred prior to the MAX crashes, the officials said. The board also is expected to emphasize the importance of setting priorities when executing emergency checklists.

In addition, the NTSB is expected to focus on potential changes to the certification of new airliners. The board is poised to recommend re-evaluation of FAA procedures that give the industry authority to sign off on certain safety matters, the officials said. The aim is to make such approvals more transparent, with the goal of greater predictability and more-consistent federal oversight across various types of onboard systems.

Neither the U.S. nor Indonesian recommendations will be binding on the FAA, though the agency already faces escalating congressional and public pressure to change certification procedures. More than half a dozen outside inquiries, including a Justice Department criminal probe and various blue-ribbon advisory panels, are delving into the FAA’s 2017 approval of MCAS. Earlier this month, a Senate appropriations subcommittee backed legislation that would require FAA officials to address recommendations from ongoing investigations and audits.
The FAA has said it welcomes the independent reviews, will carefully consider their results and doesn’t have a firm timetable for allowing MAX jets back in the air. Boeing has said it is collaborating with U.S. and foreign officials to safely return the MAX to service.

Steve Dickson, the FAA’s new head, and top lieutenants are scheduled to meet Monday in Montreal with some four dozen foreign regulators to provide a closed-door update on anticipated fixes to the MAX’s flight-control software and computers.

https://images.wsj.net/im-109695?width=740&size=1.5
The crashes prompted the grounding of all 737 MAX planes and disrupted the global aviation industry. PHOTO: LINDSEY WASSON/REUTERS

The FAA is urging a core group of regulators—from Canada, Australia, Brazil and New Zealand—to approve the fixes around November, which would be roughly in tandem with informal U.S. timelines. FAA leaders also are trying to persuade aviation authorities in Europe and other regions to follow by lifting their grounding orders shortly afterward, according to U.S. government and industry officials familiar with the deliberations.

But such coordination efforts are running into significant hurdles. Canadian aviation regulators have signaled to the FAA that they expect to require pilots to undergo simulator training before they can start flying the MAX, something the FAA is unlikely to mandate. It could take until March for Air Canada to phase the bulk of its MAX aircraft into regular schedules, according to a person briefed on the details, months later than projected for U.S. operators.

In Europe, regulators previously said they won’t accept the FAA’s technical verifications of fixes and intend to perform their own certification analyses, possibly adding weeks or months to the timetable.

Meanwhile, FAA officials said in recent weeks that Boeing hasn’t provided all of the requested details laying out the description and safety assessments of the MAX’s redesigned flight-control system.

The latest version of Indonesia’s accident report has been shared with the FAA and NTSB for comment. U.S. officials are expected to visit Indonesia around the end of this month to finalize the document. People familiar with the process said NTSB experts don’t appear to have major disagreements with the draft. Boeing and the FAA, on the other hand, are concerned the final report will unduly emphasize design and FAA certification missteps, some of these people said.

Unlike NTSB reports that identify the primary cause of accidents and then list contributing issues determined to be less significant, Indonesia is following a convention used by many foreign regulators of listing causal factors without ranking them. Instead, the report is expected to list more than 100 elements of the crash chronology, according to a person briefed on the details. Many of those points are likely to refer to missteps by pilots and mechanics initially revealed last year in Indonesia’s preliminary report.

Indonesian authorities now are asking for comments on the draft conclusions dealing with those missteps, as well as findings that investigators have determined constitute engineering shortcomings, including reliance on a sole sensor in the original design of MCAS, according to people familiar with the matter.

—Kim Mackrael
and Ben Otto contributed to this article.

Bill Ryan

23rd September 2019, 23:16

Satori

24th September 2019, 02:22

Philippe

25th September 2019, 19:24

Comments I've heard in team meetings by Program Managers:

"Ship the software anyway and let the customer pay to fix the problems."
"If you do not sign approval you will force the engineers to work through the Christmas holidays."
"You are not a team player."
I really value this type of whistleblowing were one discovers the treacherous nature of big and small programmers behind the ever more digitalized world. This socalled 4th industrial revolution is bringing out the worst in human characters.

And about the true concern that pilots don't understand their computerized planes any longer, I heard yesterday that after the catastrophe in 2009 with the Air France flight Rio de Janeiro - Paris pilots were put thru a training program with Microlights (ULM in french) to get a better sense of what flying really is. That tells a lot and they know.

silvanelf

3rd October 2019, 09:24

missteps

Jeez, what a diluted euphemism. :facepalm:

'Missteps' = catastrophic lack of understanding by the pilots what the **** was going on, due to their being almost totally unaware of MCAS having never been briefed or trained on it.

Those at the top of Boeing and the industry are scapegoating maintenance and pilots for "missteps" when they were never given the steps to miss in the first place.

As I understand it, the problem with this plane, that they tried to fix with a computer system that overrides pilots in the cockpit, is that the engines on the plane are too large and touch the ground on the 737 Max. So, they moved the engines forward and up on the wings. This created air dynamic, flight and stability problems that they tried to compensate for with computer and related software and hardware. But, they did not educate and train, or at least not adequately educate and train, pilots, maintenance etc...

This plane is unsafe at any altitude.

There is an attempt to blame the pilots -- fortunately the NTSB disagrees with that view. According to the article, an erroneous AOA sensor (which measures the flight attitude (ascending, descending, hovering) causes a cascade of alarms in the cockpit, but the pilots has to recognise the problem and respond within an impossibly short 10 seconds, while dealing with sudden information overload.

Please note the snippet highlighted in red below:

A recent New York Times Magazine piece by one William Langewiesche blamed the pilots for the crash of two 737 MAX airplanes. We strongly criticized that Boeing friendly propaganda piece:

The author's "blame the pilots" attitude is well expressed in this paragraph:

Critics have since loudly blamed it for the difficulty in countering the MCAS when the system receives false indications of a stall. But the truth is that the MCAS is easy to counter — just flip the famous switches to kill it.

--- snip ---

Last week the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) released 13 pages long recommendation (pdf) resulting from its investigation into the 737 MAX incidents. It strongly supports our view and counters Langewiesche's claims:

[T]he MCAS becomes active when the airplane’s AOA exceeds a certain threshold. Thus, these erroneous AOA sensor inputs resulted in the MCAS activating on the accident flights and providing the automatic AND stabilizer trim inputs. The erroneous high AOA sensor input that caused the MCAS activation also caused several other alerts and indications for the flight crews. The stick shaker activated on both accident flights and the previous Lion Air flight. In addition, IAS DISAGREE and ALT DISAGREE alerts occurred on all three flights. Also, the Ethiopian Airlines flight crew received Master Caution alert. Further, after the flaps were fully retracted, the unintended AND stabilizer inputs required the pilots to apply additional force to the columns to maintain the airplane’s climb attitude.

Multiple alerts and indications can increase pilots’ workload, and the combination of the alerts and indications did not trigger the accident pilots to immediately perform the runaway stabilizer procedure during the initial automatic AND stabilizer trim input.

--- snip ---

The NTSB recommends that Boeing and other manufacturers make new system safety assessments that consider the effects of all possible flight deck alarms and indications on the pilots reaction time when they respond to the failure of flight control systems. It asks for design changes of the alarm systems and for additional training. The NTSB recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration and other regulators include those demands into their general rules for aircraft certification.

The NTSB recommendations will likely induce the FAA to require additional changes on the currently grounded 737 MAX. They also seem to to push the FAA to require additional pilot training.

The NTSB report is bad news for Boeing. Most competing airplanes are much newer than the 737 and have multiple electronic sensors that can be easily combined to sort through and prioritize alarms. The 737 MAX is still largely based on the old mechanical and electrical systems of its predecessors. That makes it difficult to add a system that coordinates and prioritizes the cascade of alarms that can happen during certain events. The required changes will come on top of other changes that international regulators have loudly demanded.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/09/boeing-failed-to-consider-pilot-workload-when-it-designed-and-tested-the-737-max.html

silvanelf

3rd October 2019, 09:43

It gets even worse:

Earlier Versions Of Boeing's MCAS Included Crucial Safeguards That Were Kept Off The 737 MAX

Engineers working on Boeing's 737 MAX flight control system left out key safeguards that were included on an earlier version of the same system used on a military tanker jet, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The MCAS system in question has been determined by investigators to have been the cause of two deadly 737 MAX crashes that killed a total of 346 people. Investigators have implicated the MCAS system in the Lion Air jet crash of October 2018 and of an Ethiopian Airlines jet in March of this year. MCAS stands for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.

The engineers responsible for creating MCAS more than a decade ago for the military tanker jet designed the system "to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with limited power to move the tanker’s nose". This design was to include "deliberate checks" against the system acting in error.

A person familiar with the matter said:

“It was a choice. You don’t want the solution to be worse than the initial problem.”

-- snip --

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/earlier-versions-boeings-mcas-included-crucial-safeguards-were-kept-737-max

onevoice

8th October 2019, 22:29

Here is the latest article on the Boeing 737-MAX. There has been friction developing between the FAA and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The fundamental difference is EASA wants to run both MAX flight control computers simultaneously -- currently they are being run separately on alternating flights, as well as insisting on additional testing than what FAA has planned on proposed revisions to flight-control computers. I hope the EASA's plan prevails over the FAA's plan since it is a safer plan.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friction-between-u-s-european-regulators-could-delay-737-max-return-to-service-11570527001?mod=hp_lead_pos6

Friction Between U.S., European Regulators Could Delay 737 MAX Return to Service
European air-safety regulator has indicated it wants more testing on proposed revisions to flight-control computers
https://images.wsj.net/im-114743?width=800&size=1.5
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency recently told U.S. regulators it wasn’t satisfied that FAA and Boeing officials had adequately demonstrated the safety of reconfigured MAX flight-control computers, according to people briefed on the discussions. PHOTO: LINDSEY WASSON/REUTERS

By Andy Pasztor and Andrew Tangel
Updated Oct. 8, 2019 3:46 pm ET

Boeing Co. BA -0.65% ’s delay-prone effort to return 737 MAX jets (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-four-second-catastrophe-how-boeing-doomed-the-737-max-11565966629?mod=article_inline) to service has hit a new snag due to heightened European safety concerns about proposed fixes to the aircraft’s flight-control system, according to people familiar with the details.

Disagreements over various software details, centered on how the MAX’s dual flight-control computers are now intended to operate simultaneously, haven’t been reported before. The issue could prolong final vetting of the anticipated changes and may prompt European regulators to withhold their full support when the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ultimately allows the planes back in the air, these people said.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency recently told senior U.S. regulators it wasn’t satisfied that FAA and Boeing officials had adequately demonstrated the safety of reconfigured MAX flight-control computers, according to people briefed on the discussions.

The aim of the change is to add redundancy by running both computers at the same time, in particular to eliminate hazards stemming from possible chip malfunctions identified months ago. Over decades, and on previous versions of the 737, only one computer at a time has fed an array of data to automated systems, alternating between flights.

The European concerns were passed on by EU aviation-safety chief Patrick Ky to Ali Bahrami, the FAA’s top safety official, one of the people said. EASA, as the European safety agency is known, said it hadn’t reached a verdict on Boeing’s fixes or whether it will act in tandem with the FAA.

Without a swift resolution, according to those briefed on the details, EASA’s objections could set an aviation-industry precedent for foreign authorities publicly second-guessing determinations by the FAA that an aircraft was safe to fly.

Boeing and the FAA are finishing testing the dual-computer system, and the final results haven’t been presented to EASA or other regulators. EASA has signaled, though, that it wants additional risk scenarios examined beyond those in the current testing plan, this person said.

The situation remains fluid, and EASA’s position could change. The agency previously indicated it planned to perform some of its own simulator testing and risk analysis in coordination with FAA activities. But now, according to people briefed on the latest friction, European regulators appear poised to diverge from the overall U.S. game plan unless a compromise is reached in coming weeks. Boeing engineers are frustrated that EASA hasn’t specified what additional measures might allay its worries, according to people close to the discussions.

Regulators are mandating safeguards for the MAX’s flight-control features (https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-boeings-737-max-failed-11553699239?mod=article_inline) following a pair of fatal accidents (https://www.wsj.com/graphics/boeing-max-tale-of-two-crashes?mod=article_inline) that took 346 lives. The aircraft have been grounded world-wide (https://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-of-crashed-ethiopian-airlines-jet-reported-flight-control-problems-11552473593?mod=article_inline) since shortly after the second crash, in March.

On Monday an EASA spokeswoman said the agency still is assessing the proposed software changes, but she disputed the notion that European regulators are balking at clearing the planes for service simultaneously with the U.S., Canada and Brazil. “At this stage,” she said in an email, “we do not have any specific concerns that would lead to the conclusion” that EASA is avoiding a coordinated response with the FAA. She declined to comment on any conversations between Mr. Ky and senior FAA officials.

Addressing a meeting of foreign regulators in Montreal last month, FAA chief Steve Dickson promised to provide U.S. assistance and to pass along lessons learned “as you make your own decisions about returning the MAX to service.”

Testifying before a House appropriations subcommittee afterward, Daniel Elwell, the FAA’s No. 2 official, appeared to open the door to the possibility that the jets might return in stages, by region. Mr. Elwell said that “while simultaneous ungrounding, when or if that happens, is desired, it’s not obligatory.”

A Boeing spokesman said: “We continue to work with regulators on addressing their concerns and working through the process for certifying the 737 MAX software and training updates and safely returning the airplane to service.”

Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg said last week that Boeing test pilots had completed more than 700 MAX flights. “We are very confident in that software solution, and we are now just marching through the final steps on certifying that, so that everybody’s confident in the safety of the airplane,” he said in a public appearance in New York.

Over the past months, Boeing, EASA and the FAA have basically agreed on related software revisions designed to scale back the power, and reduce the likelihood of a misfire, of an automated flight-control system called MCAS (https://www.wsj.com/articles/testing-the-fix-for-the-troubled-737-max-11559772634?mod=article_inline) that was central to the two MAX jet accidents, happening within less than five months.

Lately, the Chicago-based plane maker has been signaling it expects the FAA to formally lift the grounding (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-delays-could-keep-boeing-737-max-grounded-into-holiday-travel-season-11567376957?mod=article_inline) in November or December, which would put the bulk of the U.S. MAX fleet on track to begin carrying passengers early next year. It previously said it expected that FAA action early in the fourth quarter. But the company hasn’t yet turned over to the FAA the final package of software fixes. That is expected to be followed by several weeks of FAA analysis, flight tests and determination of pilot training requirements.

The FAA has said it is methodically verifying the safety of proposed fixes but doesn’t have a predetermined timeline for a decision (https://www.wsj.com/articles/faas-acting-chief-wont-predict-when-boeing-737-max-will-return-to-flight-11558573295?mod=article_inline).

EASA’s leaders also want commitments from Boeing and the FAA for longer-term safety enhancements that would kick in presumably months after the MAX resumes commercial operations. According to U.S. industry and government officials, Mr. Ky is seeking a third source of flight data—beyond two full-time sensors already on the MAX—to tell computers about the angle of the jet’s nose. EASA has said once planes are back in the air, installation of a third sensor or equivalent system “could be undertaken at a later stage.”

Once the aircraft is cleared, it is expected to take months for a carrier such as Southwest Airlines Co. to work its MAX fleet back into passenger-flight schedules. Southwest has some 70 MAX jets, including aircraft it had in service and new jets still awaiting delivery.

The timing of the aircraft’s return is critical for Boeing as it considers whether to further cut production at its Renton, Wash., factory, or even suspend operations, while MAX jets pile up in storage. Before the recent concerns expressed by EASA, senior FAA officials were thinking they could be ready to give the green light for MAX flights as soon as early November, according to people familiar with the matter. The friction with their European counterparts is likely to delay that timeline until at least later that month, these people added.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com and Andrew Tangel at Andrew.Tangel@wsj.com

Cara

11th October 2019, 05:38

Orders are being cancelled:

Bye-bye Boeing: Russia’s biggest airline cancels 787 Dreamliner order
10 Oct, 2019 08:53

Russian flagship carrier Aeroflot has formally canceled an order for 22 Boeing 787 Dreamliners valued at about $5.5 billion. This adds to the pressure on Boeing due to the grounding of 737 MAX jets after two recent crashes.

The cancelation was not announced by either side but was buried in Boeing’s monthly order release.

According to Reuters’ sources, the US plane maker faces the growing possibility that it may have to cut production back by 2022 as the grounding of its popular 737 MAX stretches into its eighth month.

One of the sources said Boeing has dozens of unsold or potentially vacant 787 positions on its production line in 2022. The actual number of unfilled production slots depends on assessments about the ability of airlines to take delivery as promised, which plane makers keep confidential.

Statistics showed demand for the narrow-body aircraft that dominate most fleets remains strong. Meanwhile, demand for larger, long-haul aircraft like the 787 and Airbus A330 and A350 has weakened.

Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg said last month the company was closely tracking “macro risk areas.” He added Boeing had reserved slots on its 777 and 787 production lines for Chinese orders that have been held back by the trade war.

“There is dependency there on Chinese orders ultimately coming through,” Muilenburg said.

Some suppliers were surprised by his comments as plane makers typically raise output only after selling aircraft rather than opening the taps in hopes of winning orders later.

Company data shows Boeing officially booked a previously announced order from Air New Zealand for eight 787-10s, which is the largest Dreamliner model.
From: https://www.rt.com/business/470600-aeroflot-cancels-boeing-orders/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Philippe

26th October 2019, 20:07

More lost orders for Boeing and in favor of Airbus:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-backlash-begins-spirt-airlines-orders-100-new-airbus-planes

BMJ

10th November 2019, 14:57

As I understand it, the problem with this plane, that they tried to fix with a computer system that overrides pilots in the cockpit, is that the engines on the plane are too large and touch the ground on the 737 Max. So, they moved the engines forward and up on the wings. This created air dynamic, flight and stability problems that they tried to compensate for with computer and related software and hardware. But, they did not educate and train, or at least not adequately educate and train, pilots, maintenance etc...This plane is unsafe at any altitude.

It might have been easier and had less of an effect if Boeing just increased the length of the undercarriage to gain that extra clearance and simply allow the undercarriage to compress that extra length under retraction.

That would have been a simpler fix. But I suppose that what happens when your under pressure to find a solution yesterday then over think about possible solutions and get tunnel vision about which way to approach it.

silvanelf

17th December 2019, 16:23

Boeing is suspending production of the 737 Max in January

Boeing will halt production of its 737 Max narrow-body jet in January, escalating the company’s crisis as it prepares to end a year marked by accidents, scandals, and a plummeting public perception. The Wall Street Journal first reported the halts, citing a person briefed on the matter.

The prospect of assembly being halted was raised over the weekend. Boeing first suggested in July that it could slow or suspend production if the jet remained grounded going into 2020.

Boeing’s 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, the second of two fatal crashes involving the jet within five months.

The plane maker’s Renton, Washington, factory, where the 737 Max is manufactured, employs 12,000 workers. A Boeing spokesperson told Business Insider that no furloughs or layoffs were expected „at this time“ and that employees would continue 737-related work, or be temporarily assigned to nearby teams. It was not clear whether Boeing’s other facilities could absorb employees through a prolonged production halt.

--- snip ---

https://www.businessinsider.de/international/boeing-737-max-production-suspended-grounding-2019-12/

Ron Mauer Sr

17th December 2019, 22:27

Give pilots the option in an emergency. Remove control by computer and return control to the pilots may work.

amor

18th December 2019, 00:11

Dear Ron Mauer: Your appearance reminds me of a former father-in-law, who was also a meticulous, honest person who never appeared to lose his temper.

onevoice

18th December 2019, 03:45

The article from CNN below details how the 737-Max plane will plague Boeing for many more years to come. There is good short video in the beginning of the CNN article which one of the commentator says that one of the first major blunder that Boeing committed was failure to include documentation of the MCAS into the pilot manual for the plane. Boeing management felt it was not worth mentioning in the flight manual for the plane. This is really outrageous decision by Boeing management among other bad decisions. I hope some people will take class action suit against Boeing for the many egregious decisions by Boeing management. As would be expected, Boeing stock is starting to tank even more recently.

Luckily for the public, FAA is beginning to step up to the plate by insisting that it will certify each plane individually.

Source (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/business/boeing-737-max-outlook/index.html)

Boeing's 737 Max woes will last for several more years

By Chris Isidore, CNN Business
Updated 3:42 PM ET, Tue December 17, 2019

<<<embedded video from CNN>>>

New York (CNN Business) - Boeing's 737 Max crisis keeps getting worse and worse. And there is no clear end in sight.

In March, following the second of two fatal crashes (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/10/africa/ethiopian-airlines-crash-boeing-max-8-intl/index.html) that killed a total of 346 people, Boeing promised a fix would be in place "in the coming weeks." The company was wrong on the timing, and now there's no telling when the 737 Max jets will fly again.

On Monday, the company suspended production of the jets. While the planes may be airborne sooner, analysts estimate that it could be well into 2022, maybe even 2023, before Boeing is able to put its 737 Max problems behind it.

As recently as last week, Boeing was insisting that it could get approval for the plane to fly again by the end of this year. Then FAA administrator Stephen Dickson (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/business/faa-boeing-737-max/index.html) said there were too many steps to complete to grant an approval until sometime in 2020. That prompted Boeing to announce Monday that it will temporarily halt production (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-suspends-737-max-production/index.html) of the 737 Max, starting next month, for an undetermined length of time.

When will the Max fly again?

Analysts say it's difficult to come up with an estimate for when the Max might gain approval to fly again, due to the lack of details from Boeing or the FAA. All the agency and company will say is that they are working to first make sure the plane is completely safe .

"You get little snippets of information. I would say mid-February is a guess, but it could be March," said Cai von Rumohr, aerospace analyst with Cowen. "It's pretty hard to say it will be X or Y date."

Ronald Epstein, analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said he's now expecting approval around March 1, but he could see it going as late as May.

How long to deliver the planes it has built?

Boeing continued building the planes since the grounding, despite being unable to deliver them to customers. That left the company unable to get most of the money for the sales, because airline customers pay the bulk of what's owed upon delivery.

The company has about 400 completed planes parked in Washington State and Texas awaiting approval to fly in commercial service. Boeing says it expects it will be at least 2021 before it can deliver the backlog to customers, but analysts think it could stretch into at least mid-2022, depending on when the company starts building the jets again.

Part of that backup is because airlines can't take immediate delivery of all of the jets Boeing has built for them -- they need time to integrate the planes into their fleets.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191021135648-boeing-737-max-0627-medium-plus-169.jpg
Related Article: Boeing is halting production of the embattled 737 Max starting in January (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-suspends-737-max-production/index.html)

"Two or three planes per airline per month would be a pretty aggressive schedule," Epstein said. And the process of delivering the jets will be time consuming, especially since the FAA itself will now certify each plane individually. In the past, Boeing was allowed to sign off on the jets as they rolled off the assembly line.

"That's a lot of planes to deliver. You've got to do pre-delivery checkouts. You've got the FAA looking over their shoulder," said von Rumohr.

Will there be layoffs?

For now at least, Boeing will keep all of its employees on the payroll. Von Rumohr said that's partly an indication of the strength of the current job market, with national unemployment at a 50-year low, and lower still in the Seattle area at 3.3%. Boeing doesn't want to risk losing the employees it will need to restart production.

What happens with Boeing's suppliers, though, is less clear. Several said Tuesday that they are still waiting for guidance from the company. Analysts believe that the company will have to provide some financial support to its suppliers to ensure they're ready when production on the 737 Max starts up again.

"We expect Boeing to support suppliers...in order to preserve labor and production capabilities," said JPMorgan analyst Seth Seifman in a note late Monday.

How much will it cost Boeing?

Even though Boeing will save money by shutting production, it will still incur significant costs while its assembly lines are idle.

"We estimate that Boeing is burning nearly $2 billion per month on the Max but this will not drop to zero during the halt," said Seifman in his note. "For now, we assume about 50% of supply chain costs hang around, resulting in monthly cash burn that is still solidly greater than $1 billion."

Boeing has already set aside $5 billion to compensate airlines for the groundings. But that is likely only a fraction of what the final cost will be. The company said it will give a financial update when it reports fourth quarter results. Epstein estimates the 737 Max grounding will eventually cost the company about $14 billion.

The good news for Boeing is that it can likely afford this kind of financial hit. It has a healthy balance sheet and access to capital markets needed to raise funds, and a better credit rating than its airline customers.

The hit to the US economy

Even so, the shutdown is a major event that eventually could affect not just Boeing and the airlines but also spread to nation's economy. If it lasts through March, it could trim about a 0.5 percentage points off the US gross domestic product in the quarter, according to estimates from several economists. The economic hit could be even greater if it starts to result in layoffs.

"Boeing's decision to halt production of the 737 Max aircraft could deliver a big hit to the manufacturing sector just as prospects were beginning to brighten," wrote Michael Pearce, senior US economist at Capital Economics.

silvanelf

18th December 2019, 16:11

Give pilots the option in an emergency. Remove control by computer and return control to the pilots may work.

They did just that ... at least according to this article below:

Boeing’s fix tames the ‘tiger’ in the 737 MAX flight controls, say experts and critics

Nov. 17, 2019 at 6:00 am Updated Nov. 21, 2019 at 5:02 pm

After months of intense scrutiny, even some of the harshest critics of the 737 MAX’s flight-control system believe Boeing’s software fix will prevent a recurrence of the scenarios that killed 346 people in the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.

Boeing has redesigned the MAX’s new automated Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that relentlessly pushed down the noses of the two aircraft on both crash flights. Though serious questions linger about the overall safety culture at Boeing that waved through MCAS’s original development and certification, U.S. airline pilots are almost ready to fly the updated jet.

“The hazard is designed out of it,” Capt. John DeLeeuw, chairman of the safety committee of the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the union for American Airlines pilots, declared to colleagues a week after trying the flight-control fix in a Boeing simulator in Miami in late September.

Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer and former fighter pilot in the Swedish Air Force, now a France-based aviation analyst with Leeham.net, has said Boeing’s original MCAS design was “criminally badly done … unforgivable,” and compared the system’s aggressiveness to a tiger. He too believes the redesign now makes the airplane as safe as the previous 737 model.

“There’s no part of any airplane out there that’s been as thoroughly vetted,” said Fehrm. “MCAS is no longer a tiger, but a house cat.”

The final pieces of that vetting are now imminent.

Boeing expects the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to formally unground the jet next month and to pin down all the pilot training requirements in January.

That’s pending a formal certification flight and a final evaluation of the software fix for the jet’s flight controls. And the FAA insisted Friday that it will take its time and won’t be swayed by pressure from Boeing (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-boss-says-agency-wont-be-swayed-by-pressure-to-approve-boeings-737-max/).

--- snip ---

Boeing’s fix for MCAS entails three changes to the system design:

It will take input from the jet’s two angle of attack sensors instead of just one.

If they disagree by more than a nominal amount, the system assumes a false signal and will not activate.

If both angle of attack sensors somehow get stuck at the same wrong high value — perhaps if they got frozen in the wrong position — again MCAS won’t activate because the upgrade is designed to do so only when the angle moves suddenly from below the threshold to a new high value.

If both sensors together register a sudden movement to a high angle of attack, the system will activate once only — not repeatedly, as in the accident flights.

The capability of the system to move the horizontal stabilizer so as to pitch the jet nose-down will be limited. The pilot will always be able to counter it by pulling back on the control column.

In addition, Boeing has revised the overall architecture of the MAX’s flight-control computer system (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/newly-stringent-faa-tests-spur-a-fundamental-software-redesign-of-737-max-flight-controls/), so that on every flight the MAX takes separate inputs from the jet’s two flight-control computers, rather than just one as previously.

These two computers, each processing air data readings from the various sensors on both sides of the airplane, will cross-check and compare values. Again, if they disagree, automated systems including MCAS will be shut down.

This change should catch any computer error as opposed to a sensor fault.

A person briefed on the details said such a shutdown would come in less than one-third of a second, so even if the pilots are distracted and fail to notice the airplane moving as it shouldn’t, the automation won’t be allowed to continue.

This addresses a problem identified in both accident investigations: that pilots took much longer to recognize and react to an MCAS fault than Boeing had assumed (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/ntsb-faults-boeing-tests-of-max-system-for-not-assessing-pilot-response-to-multiple-alerts/). By stopping any erroneous uncommanded movements automatically, the redesign takes the response out of the pilots’ hands altogether.

“We’re not letting the system run while the pilots are inattentive,” said the person, who required anonymity because parties to the ongoing accident investigations are not allowed to speak publicly.

Peter Lemme, a former Boeing flight-controls engineer and avionics expert who has been very critical of the original MCAS design, said Boeing has addressed all his concerns.

--- snip ---

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-fix-tames-the-tiger-in-the-737-max-flight-controls/

onevoice

6th January 2020, 16:15

There is a new design flaw in the 737 Max that recently came to light:

Boeing has uncovered another potential design flaw with the 737 Max

By Clare Duffy, CNN Business
Updated 8:32 PM ET, Sun January 5, 2020

New York (CNN Business) Hundreds of 737 Max jets are sitting, grounded, as Boeing awaits approval from aviation regulators for the troubled plane (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/business/boeing-deliveries-orders/index.html) to return to flight. But now, the company has discovered yet another (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-suspends-737-max-production/index.html) potential hurdle.

The plane was grounded (http://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/politics/donald-trump-boeing-faa/index.html) worldwide in March after two crashes that killed 346 people. The company determined a software fix (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/politics/boeing-737-max-flaw/index.html) was likely to correct the issue with the automatic safety feature that caused the crashes.

However, as part of a December audit of the plane's safety ordered by the US Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing (BA) found "previously unreported concerns" with wiring in the 737 Max, according to a report earlier Sunday from the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/business/boeing-737-max.html). The company informed the FAA last month that it is looking into whether two sections of wiring that control the tail of the plane are too close together and could cause a short circuit — and potentially a crash, if pilots did not react appropriately -— the Times reported, citing a senior Boeing engineer and three people familiar with the matter.

A Boeing spokesperson confirmed the report to CNN Business on Sunday, saying the issue was identified as part of a "rigorous process" to ensure the plane's safety.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191218101005-02-boeing-737-max-production-file-medium-plus-169.jpg
Related Article: Boeing hit with another lawsuit over troubled 737 Max (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/business/boeing-sued-timaero-737-max/index.html)

"Our highest priority is ensuring the 737 Max meets all safety and regulatory requirements before it returns to service," the spokesperson said. "We are working closely with the FAA and other regulators on a robust and thorough certification process to ensure a safe and compliant design."

The spokesperson said it "would be premature to speculate" whether the discovery will lead to new design changes for the plane, or further extend the timeline (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/business/boeing-deliveries-orders/index.html) for its recertification.

It will be a challenge for Boeing's new chief executive, David Calhoun, who officially takes over the job on January 13 after former CEO Dennis Muilenburg was ousted (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/business/boeing-dennis-muilenburg/index.html) on December 23.

"A change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders," the company in December.

Earlier in December, the company announced it would take the dramatic step of suspending production of the 737 Max (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/boeing-suspends-737-max-production/index.html) in light of the continued setbacks to recertification.

Orders for the 737 Max dried up (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/business/boeing-orders/index.html) following the grounding, and it wasn't until November that Boeing recorded its first new orders (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/boeing-737-max-orders/index.html) since the grounding. In the meantime, the company had continued to produce the planes at a rate of 42 jets a month (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/business/boeing-deliveries-orders/index.html), in hopes of a quick recertification by airline regulators around the globe.

But as the process was pushed into 2020, Boeing said the plane's uncertain future had forced it to pause production and prioritize the delivery of the approximately 400 airplanes it has in storage.

ExomatrixTV

11th January 2020, 00:21

Leaked Emails PROVE Boeing KNEW The 737 MAX Was Dangerous, They Admit To Covering it Up
weXGcQwunUY
It’s Not Just Software: New Safety Risks Under Scrutiny on Boeing’s 737 Max

The company and regulators are looking into everything from the wiring on the plane to its engines.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/06/business/06boeing1/merlin_166053843_464863da-f693-4eb2-92cc-2322fdb37f82-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale
A 737 Max at Boeing’s assembly plant in Renton, Wash., last month. Boeing said it would temporarily stop making the 737.Credit...Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Even as Boeing (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-boeing-ukraine.html) inches closer to getting the 737 Max (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-boeing-ukraine.html) back in the air, new problems with the plane are emerging that go beyond the software that played a role in two deadly crashes.As part of the work to return the Max to service, the company and regulators have scrutinized every aspect of the jet, uncovering new potential design flaws.

At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-boeing-ukraine.html) conducted an internal audit in December to determine whether it had accurately assessed the dangers of key systems given new assumptions about how long it might take pilots to respond to emergencies, according to a senior engineer at Boeing (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/business/boeing-737-max-simulator-training.html) and three people familiar with the matter.

Among the most pressing issues discovered were previously unreported concerns with the wiring that helps control the tail of the Max.

The company is looking at whether two bundles of critical wiring are too close together and could cause a short circuit. A short in that area could lead to a crash if pilots did not respond correctly, the people said. Boeing is still trying to determine whether that scenario could actually occur on a flight and, if so, whether it would need to separate the wire bundles in the roughly 800 Max jets that have already been built. The company says that the fix, if needed, is relatively simple.

The company informed the F.A.A. about the potential vulnerability last month, and Boeing’s new chief executive discussed possible changes to the wiring on an internal conference call last week, according to one of the people and the Boeing engineer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The company may eventually need to look into whether the same problem exists on the 737 NG, the predecessor to the Max. There are currently about 6,800 of those planes in service.

The senior Boeing engineer said that finding such problems and fixing them was not unusual and not particular to the Max or to Boeing.

The emergence of new troubles with the Max threatens to extend a crisis that is consuming one of America’s most influential companies and disrupting the global aviation business. The Max has been grounded since March, after two crashes killed 346 people. The crashes were caused in part by new software on the Max, MCAS, which triggered erroneously and sent the planes into nose dives. Boeing has developed a fix for the software, but it has not yet been approved, and the process of returning the plane to service has taken much longer than Boeing expected.

The Max is Boeing’s most important plane, with about 5,000 ordered by airlines around the world. But as the grounding has dragged on, Boeing said it would temporarily shut down its 737 factory, jolting thousands of suppliers and stoking the concern of President Trump.

Boeing abruptly fired its chief executive late last month after he alienated the F.A.A. and airline customers. His successor is now contending with the fallout, as Boeing’s share price has fallen by 21 percent and the company faces tens of billions of dollars in charges related to the grounding.

Regulators have suggested that the Max could be approved to fly again by the spring, a timetable that could still hold. The company says that even if it needs to fix the wiring issue, it would only take one to two hours per plane to separate the wiring bundles on the Max using a clamp.

“We are working closely with the F.A.A. and other regulators on a robust and thorough certification process to ensure a safe and compliant design,” Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing spokesman, said in a statement. “We identified these issues as part of that rigorous process, and we are working with the F.A.A. to perform the appropriate analysis. It would be premature to speculate as to whether this analysis will lead to any design changes.”

Investigations by international regulators into the cause of the two Max crashes determined that pilots of those flights did not respond as quickly or effectively as Boeing and the F.A.A., using accepted industry standards, presumed they would when designing and evaluating the MCAS software.

So in developing a software update for the Max, Boeing and the F.A.A. recognized that the previous industry assumptions should be changed, and that they needed to consider what would happen if it took crews much longer to act in the face of emergencies.

Using that new set of assumptions about pilot reactions, Boeing discovered that if two wire bundles placed close together toward the rear of the plane caused an electrical short, it could lead to a catastrophic accident. The wiring connects to the motor that controls the stabilizer, the horizontal fin on a plane’s tail, sending signals from the flight control computer that can push the nose down or lift it up.

If pilots did not recognize the problem and quickly take appropriate action, the plane could go into a nose dive, the senior Boeing engineer said. Under those circumstances, a short could bring a plane down in the same way that the MCAS software did on both doomed flights, forcing the stabilizer’s motor to run uncontrollably.

Boeing is still working to determine how likely it is that the wires could actually short circuit. The company does not want to make changes to the plane’s wiring if it doesn't have to, fearing that additional damage could be done during a repair.

The engines on the Max have also become a focus of scrutiny for regulators. CFM International, the joint venture between General Electric and Safran that manufactures the engines, has told the F.A.A. it discovered a possible weakness in one of the engines’ rotors, which could cause the part to shatter. The likelihood of that failure is remote and regulators aren’t requiring an immediate fix, though they are looking to require that airlines inspect as many Max engines as possible before the plane returns to service, an F.A.A. official said.

A 737 MAX production line inside the Boeing factory in Renton last month.Credit...Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

Boeing also recently told the F.A.A. that it had discovered a manufacturing problem that left the plane’s engines vulnerable to a lightning strike.

While assembling the Max, workers at Boeing’s Renton, Wash., factory had ground down the outer shell of a panel that sits atop the engine housing in an effort to ensure a better fit into the plane. In doing so, they inadvertently removed the coating that insulates the panel from a lightning strike, taking away a crucial protection for the fuel tank and fuel lines. The F.A.A. is developing a directive that will require the company to restore lightning protection to the engine panel and Boeing is already in the process of resolving the issue.

“The F.A.A. and Boeing are analyzing certain findings from a recent review of the proposed modifications to the Boeing 737 MAX,” an F.A.A. spokesman, Lynn Lunsford, said in a statement. “As part of its continuing oversight, the agency will ensure that all safety-related issues identified during this process are addressed before the aircraft is approved for return to passenger service.”

The new issues pose additional challenges for Boeing’s leadership. Late last month, the company’s board fired the chief executive, Dennis A. Muilenburg. He is being replaced on an interim basis by Greg Smith, the former chief financial officer. Next week, David Calhoun, until recently the nonexecutive chairman of Boeing’s board, will take over as chief executive.

On an internal conference call last Thursday, the question of changing the wiring on the Max came up, according to the senior Boeing engineer and another person familiar with the matter. At one point, a Boeing employee asked about whether the fix would need to be made to every plane in the fleet if the issue was found to be low risk. Mr. Smith replied that if changes were needed, they would have to be comprehensive.
Mr. Smith’s sober response served as an immediate contrast to Mr. Muilenburg, who repeatedly made overly optimistic projections about what was needed to get the Max back into service.

Boeing was already confronting a number of problems with the 737 Max and its predecessor.

In recent simulator tests with crews from American, Southwest and United Airlines as well as Aeromexico, many pilots did not use the prescribed emergency procedures to handle problems with the flights, raising the possibility that regulators could mandate flight simulator training or change the procedures before clearing the plane to fly. The F.A.A. is evaluating Boeing’s analysis of the testing.

Still, there are signs that Boeing is making progress toward getting the Max flying again. Regulators from Europe plan to fly to Seattle this week to test the new software in a flight simulator, a sign that international authorities believe the company is far enough along that its fix is ready for serious evaluation, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Government officials believe that the plane may be cleared for a certification test flight as soon as this month, where the company must demonstrate the plane meets all the safety requirements. The flight — the regulator’s final exam for the Max — is a significant milestone and one of the last hurdles the company needs to clear for regulators to lift the grounding.

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines are currently planning to use the Max for commercial flights in April, while United Airlines has scheduled Max flights for June.

“Our highest priority is ensuring the 737 Max meets all safety and regulatory requirements before it returns to service,” said Mr. Johndroe, the Boeing spokesman.

Source (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/business/boeing-737-max.html)

Fired Boeing CEO (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/01/10/boeing-737-max-fallout-ousted-ceo-not-receive-severance-pay/4436489002/) won't receive severance, but he cashed out with $60+ million in benefits

ExomatrixTV

11th January 2020, 00:28

Boeing 737 MAX was 'designed by clowns'
dQyo_jEfWRA

Meanwhile:
42249
Source (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/) Screen-snapshot!

Worldwide grounding:

In March 2019, aviation authorities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_aviation_authority) around the world grounded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_on_ground) the Boeing 737 MAX passenger airliner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner) after two new airplanes crashed within five months, killing all 346 people aboard. After the first accident, Lion Air Flight 610 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610) on October 29, 2018, investigators suspected that the MAX's "new" Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System) (MCAS), which was omitted from flight manuals and crew training, automatically and repeatedly forced the aircraft to nosedive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_(aeronautics)#Dives). In November 2018, Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) sent airlines urgent messages to emphasize a flight recovery procedure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Runaway_stabilizer_and_manual_trim), and Boeing started to redesign MCAS. In December 2018, studies by the FAA and Boeing concluded that MCAS posed an unacceptable safety risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#MCAS_and_MAX_safety_risk_analysis). On March 10, 2019 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302) crashed, despite the crew's attempt to use the recovery procedure. The airline grounded its MAX fleet that day.

On March 11, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Aviation_Administration_of_China) was the first regulator to ground the MAX. The FAA publicly reaffirmed the airworthiness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_Airworthiness_Notification_to_the_International_Community) of the aircraft on March 11, but grounded it on March 13 after receiving new evidence of accident similarities. By March 18, all regulators worldwide banned the airliner. The groundings affected 387 airplanes making 8,600 weekly flights for 59 airlines.

After the second accident, the U.S. Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress), federal agencies and ad hoc panels began investigating and monitoring FAA certification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate) of the aircraft, especially the delegation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_Designation_Authorization) of self-approval authority to Boeing. In March, The Seattle Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seattle_Times) reported that changes by Boeing prior to certification made MCAS gain power and lose safeguards, and that Boeing produced a flawed safety analysis and inadequately communicated the changes to the FAA, which poorly understood them. In April, Boeing admitted that MCAS played a role in both accidents. In October 2019, the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Committee) Lion Air accident report concluded that airplane design flaws, inadequate certification and safety regulation, maintenance errors, and flight crew actions contributed to the crash. In November 2019, the FAA revoked Boeing's authority to issue airworthiness certificates for individual MAX airplanes. In January 2020, Boeing reverted its position and recommended simulator training for pilots.

Affected airlines canceled thousands of flights, and Boeing suspended deliveries and reduced production of the MAX. The grounding became the longest ever of a U.S. airliner, as other system problems emerged and regulators required more corrective work. As of November 2019, Boeing had lost over $10 billion in revenue and compensation expenses to airlines and bereaved families, and faced lawsuits from pilots and victims' families. In December 2019 Boeing forced its CEO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEO) to resign over mismanagement of the crisis. With more than 400 of the aircraft awaiting delivery, Boeing planned to temporarily halt MAX production in January 2020 until regulators clear the airliner to fly again.

Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX)

ExomatrixTV

11th January 2020, 00:40

Boeing 737 MAX Crashes Immediately After Takeoff | Here's What Really Happened to Flight 610
_T5xhHzZjPQ
The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice:
H2tuKiiznsY
Will the MAX fly again?!
cQ1DseELk-I

Bill Ryan

19th February 2020, 16:35

From https://reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-debris/boeing-finds-debris-in-737-max-jetliners-company-memo-idUSKBN20C2RW

Boeing finds debris in 737 MAX jetliners' fuel tanks: company memo
18 Feb, 2020

Boeing found debris that could pose potential safety risks in the fuel tanks of several 737 MAX aircraft that are in storage and waiting to be delivered to airlines, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

Foreign object debris, an industrial term for rags, tools, metal shavings and other materials left behind by workers during the production process, has been a quality control issue for various Boeing aircraft, such as its KC-46 tankers.

Mark Jenks, general manager of the 737 program, told employees in the memo that such debris was “absolutely unacceptable” and that the company was taking steps to address the issue in its production system.

A Boeing spokesman confirmed the memo’s authenticity, and said Boeing does not see the debris as contributing to delays in the jet’s return to service.

The objects were found during maintenance work on some of the hundreds of 737 MAX jetliners Boeing has built but not delivered due to a worldwide ban imposed last March following two crashes that killed 346 people, he said.

The FAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

onevoice

22nd February 2020, 16:58

According to the Zerohedge article (https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/absolutely-unacceptable-leaked-boeing-memo-shows-debris-found-737-max-fuel-tanks?utm_campaign=&utm_content=ZeroHedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter) below, foreign object debris issue in the 737 Max jets are more widespread than initially reported. Boeing has a serious systemic quality control issue in building these jets lately.

There is an error in the first link ("internal Boeing memo") of the referenced article that points to the article itself rather than going to the memo. Here is an excerpt from an earlier Boeing internal memo reported by a recent LA Times article (https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-09/incredibly-damning-boeing-messages-show-employee-unease-on-737-max):

“This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” one company pilot said in messages to a colleague in 2016. The company provided the documents in December to lawmakers and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, who are investigating the 737 Max and the process that cleared it to fly.

Half Of Undelivered 737 MAX Jets Inspected Have 'Debris' Found In Fuel Tanks

by Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/22/2020 - 10:35

Update (Feb 22): Last week an internal Boeing memo (https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/absolutely-unacceptable-leaked-boeing-memo-shows-debris-found-737-max-fuel-tanks) detailed how inspectors found debris in the fuel tanks of several 737 MAX aircraft that are sitting in storage and waiting to be delivered to airlines. Updated reports now show the problem is much more widespread than previously thought.

Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-debris/boeing-finds-debris-in-fuel-tanks-of-many-undelivered-737-max-jets-idUSKCN20G08X) notes that 35 MAX planes had foreign-object debris (FOD) in the fuel tanks. A Boeing spokesman confirmed this on Friday:

"We are taking steps to make sure we eliminate FOD from any and all aircraft. This is unacceptable and won't be tolerated on any Boeing aircraft when it's delivered to the customer," Boeing said in an emailed statement.

A source told Reuters that at least 50% of undelivered MAX jets inspected have FOD in them.

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/boeing%20tank.png?itok=pHvSJG3j

Industry officials told The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-finds-fuel-tank-debris-in-two-thirds-of-undelivered-737-max-jets-inspected-so-far-11582336382) that the scale of the problem is widespread. They said Boeing had inspected 50 of the 400 MAX planes waiting for delivery once ungrounding occurs, indicating that some jets had rags, boot coverings, tools, and other debris in the fuel tanks.

The FOD problem (https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/absolutely-unacceptable-leaked-boeing-memo-shows-debris-found-737-max-fuel-tanks) on the MAX was first reported Tuesday on Scott Hamilton's Leeham.net (https://leeham.net/) aviation site:

"There's a systemic issue with Boeing's quality control that hasn't been corralled yet," said Hamilton in an interview.

"This is not related to the MAX crashes or exclusively a MAX issue. Boeing has these FOD issues on other airplane programs."

Compound the FOD issue with a string of setbacks stretching almost one year since the grounding of the aircraft, and it has just been one disaster after another for Boeing.

On Friday, a new twist (https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/feds-probing-if-boeing-pilot-lied-faa-about-737-max) in the Boeing saga developed when NYT reported that federal prosecutors were examining whether or not the aerospace company knowingly misled the FAA while seeking approval for the 737 Max.

Prosecutors have questioned several Boeing employees in front of a federal grand jury whether a top Boeing pilot, Mark Forkner, lied to the FAA about the capabilities of the then-new MCAS airplane software.

Airlines have been aware of the new setbacks (https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/united-pulls-boeing-737-max-schedule-until-september-4) and pushed out MAX return to service dates out to late summer and or even fall.

Southwest said it is extending its MAX flight cancellations through August 20, the largest US airline (by available seat miles) United Airlines, also said it was pulling the MAX from its schedule until September 4.

New setbacks could push the grounding out even further. The impacts on the US economy (https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-slides-no-new-airplane-orders-january) are tremendous.

* * *

With airline after airline pushing back their 'return-to-service' dates based on Boeing's total lack of clarity on the path forward for the 737 MAX, the troubled aircraft maker (and the troubled aircraft) now faces more problems.

According to an internal memo, seen by Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-debris/boeing-finds-debris-in-737-max-jetliners-company-memo-idUSKBN20C2RW), Boeing found debris that could pose potential safety risks in the fuel tanks of several 737 MAX aircraft that are in storage and waiting to be delivered to airlines.

To be clear about what 'debris' means, Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max-debris/boeing-finds-debris-in-737-max-jetliners-company-memo-idUSKBN20C2RW) details that:

"an industrial term for rags, tools, metal shavings and other materials left behind by workers during the production process."

And notes that this 'debris' problem has been a quality control issue for various Boeing aircraft, such as its KC-46 tankers.

Foreign-object debris (FOD) “is absolutely unacceptable. One escape is one too many,” Mark Jenks, a Boeing vice president and general manager of the 737 program, said in a message to employees that was viewed by Reuters.

“With your help and focus, we will eliminate FOD from our production system,”

Bill Ryan

12th March 2020, 19:16

A strong thought just struck me — and I've not yet seen anything written about this. (Anyone who may be sifficiently interested, please do find any articles you know about concerning this.)

Boeing was already in deep trouble after the 737 MAX fiasco. With the current ongoing massacre of the airline and travel industry, everyone surely has to be canceling their Boeing 737 orders. And for every other Boeing, too.

So if I was a market analyst, I'd be predicting Boeing hitting very serious financial trouble in a few short months from now.

The outcome? A US government bailout, for sure, as Boeing is also a key defense contractor. (Assuming the two businesses aren't financially firewalled from each other.)

For many reading this, this may be very minor and irrelevant. But this did strike me quite clearly, so I merely wanted to note it down. :)

silvanelf

19th March 2020, 12:31

Boeing Seeks "A Minimum $60 Billion" Govt Bailout After Fully Drawing-Down $13Bn Credit Line (https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-seeks-tens-billions-us-government-loans)

take

19th March 2020, 13:10

Should be allowed to go under, if only boeing wasn't a part of the military industrial complex... I'm tired of this "austerity for the many, socialism for the rich".

Bill Ryan

8th January 2024, 11:40

The Boeing 737 MAX is still in trouble. Here's an update from The Moon of Alabama:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/01/boeings-737-max-is-still-a-mess.html#more

Boeing's 737 MAX is still a Mess

I haven't written about the engineering and business mess (https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/05/boeing-737-max-crash-reveals-a-severe-problem-with-older-boeing-737-ngs.html) of Boeing for a while.

After the 2019 737 Max failures that downed two airplanes and killed all inside, the company promised to change its culture. But it has since seen several production stops for quality and flight security issues on several of its manufacturing lines. There are still undelivered 737 MAX and 787 planes mothballed on various airports around Seattle.
And now comes this:
Pete Muntean @petemuntean - 4:20 UTC · Jan 6, 2024 (https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/1743487804133253264) NEW IMAGE from on board Alaska Airlines 1282 after ***part of the fuselage*** blew out mid-flight. Successful emergency return to Portland after 20 minutes in the air. 10-week-old (!) Boeing 737 Max 9. NTSB investigating.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/17i/newmax1-s.jpg
bigger

(https://www.moonofalabama.org/17i/newmax1.jpg) There is video (https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1743476391553683904) from inside the plane as it was landing. Oxygen masks had been deployed when the plane depressurized. The women filming says that there was thankfully no one seated next to where the hull was breached. If there had been that person would likely have died.
R A W S A L E R T S @rawsalerts - 3:35 UTC · Jan 6, 2024 (https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1743476391553683904) 🚨#BREAKING: Alaska Airlines Forced to Make an Emergency Landing After Large Aircraft Window Blows Out Mid-Air
A forced emergency landing was made of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 at Portland International Airport on Friday night. The flight, traveling from Portland to Ontario, California, faced severe depressurization, causing the ejection of a large window section and an unoccupied seat. This incident resulted in a child's shirt being ripped off. The Boeing 737-900/-9MAX aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 16,300 ft before safely returning to Portland International Airport. As of now, it remains unclear if anyone on board the flight was injured, as this story is still developing.
It was not just the emergency exit door that was ripped out. (Such window emergency doors only open towards the inside of the plane.) The whole section around the emergency exit door departed.

I have since learned that this was indeed the place of a special emergency exit that, when installed, opens to the outside. This is 'plugged' on lower density planes that do not need it.

That points to a serious manufacturing issue at the hull builder that had not been caught by quality control.

All passengers and the crew survived and the plane landed safely. Alaska Air has grounded (https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-airlines/operations/as-1282/) its 65 strong fleet of 737 MAX 9. Other airlines should follow.

The Seattle Times has the details (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/180-on-alaska-airlines-flight-safe-and-scared-in-portland-after-window-blows/):
The neat rectangular hole that appeared in the fuselage was located at the position where Boeing fits a plug to seal a door opening that is not used as a door by most airlines and by no U.S. carriers. An emergency exit door is installed in that location only for jets going to low-cost carriers like Ryanair who cram in additional seats that require an extra emergency exit. Otherwise, the hole is sealed with a plug and from the inside it is covered by a sidewall so that to a passenger it looks like a normal window, not a door opening.
This plug, halfway between the over-wing exit and the door at the rear of the plane, is present only on the largest versions of the 737.
It’s fitted on the previous generation 737-900ER and the same design is on the 737 MAX 8-200, the high density version for low-cost carriers, as well as the MAX 9 and MAX 10.
It is not present on the MAX 7 or MAX 8.
"Well, the plug got pulled ..."

Just last week we also got this (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/boeing-urges-airlines-to-inspect-787-max-planes-for-possible-loose-bolts/ar-AA1mcINd):
Boeing instructed customer airlines to inspect their 737 Max jets for loose bolts, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced Thursday. The request comes after the manufacturer discovered two aircraft with missing bolts in the rudder control system, raising concerns about faults across all aircraft.
“The issue identified on the particular airplane has been remedied,” Boeing told CNN in a statement. “Out of an abundance of caution, we are recommending operators inspect their 737 Max airplanes and inform us of any findings.”
Yesterday the Seattle Times also reported:

Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wants-faa-to-exempt-max-7-from-safety-rules-to-get-it-in-the-air/)
Little noticed, the Federal Aviation Administration in December published a Boeing request for an exemption from key safety standards on the 737 MAX 7 — the still-uncertified smallest member of Boeing’s newest jet family. Since August, earlier models of the MAX currently flying passengers in the U.S. have had to limit use of the jet’s engine anti-ice system after Boeing discovered a defect in the system with potentially catastrophic consequences.
The flaw could cause the inlet at the front end of the pod surrounding the engine — known as a nacelle — to break and fall off.
In an August Airworthiness Directive, the FAA stated that debris from such a breakup could penetrate the fuselage, putting passengers seated at windows behind the wings in danger, and could damage the wing or tail of the plane, “which could result in loss of control of the airplane.”
...
One hopes that the FAA and Congress will finally get serious with Boeing. They must stop giving it all those lazy exceptions for issues that better (but more expensive) engineering can easily solve.

Bill Ryan

7th March 2024, 13:52

Another incident.

https://zerohedge.com/markets/plane-was-nosediving-united-airlines-boeing-737-engine-erupts-flames-over-texas

"Plane Was Nosediving": United Airlines Boeing 737 Engine Erupts in Flames over Texas

Dramatic footage shared on social media platform X shows the moment a United Airlines' Boeing 737 from Houston to Fort Myers had to declare an emergency just minutes into its flight after flames erupted from one of its engines.

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1765688407919919408
1765688407919919408

"I remember there was just this bright, flashing light that came through the window, and it sounded like a bomb went off, and then it was just a strobe of fire out the window," David Gruninger, who was on his way back to Florida on a connecting flight, told local media outlet ABC 13 (https://abc13.com/houston-flight-united-engine-catches-fire-out-of-iah-boeing-737/14497766/).

According to the flight tracking website FlightAware, Flight 1118, with 167 passengers on board, took off from George Bush Intercontinental Airport at 6:40 pm local time. Just minutes after takeoff, the plane returned to the airport because of the engine issue.

"The plane was nosediving, and the pilot was bringing the plane back up," passenger Elliot Trexler said, adding, "The plane was also rocking back and forth a lot."

"And then it just turned into chaos. People were screaming and crying and trying to figure out what was going on," Gruninger said.

Radio transmission from the pilots described "our left engine, our number one engine," experienced an issue while climbing through about 10,000 feet.

The plane trip from hell lasted about 33 minutes after takeoff. Pilots landed safely around 7:31 local time—United credited passengers with $200 and a $15 meal voucher.

This adds to the incompetency crisis plaguing Boeing jets following the door plug that ripped off an Alaska Flight 1282 Boeing 737 Max 9 plane earlier this year. The Federal Aviation Administration's audit (https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/faa-finds-non-compliance-issues-boeings-737-max-manufacturing-program) of the incident revealed that Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems have "failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements."

"The incompetency crisis continues as diversifying the flight industry moves full speed ahead," one X user said (https://x.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1765557622302753140?s=20).

Bill Ryan

14th March 2024, 10:06

Boeing's troubles — apparently far more serious and dramatic than anyone knew — are quickly becoming widely discussed. Here's Redacted (Natali and Clayton Morris) with their own new report.

He was EXPOSING Boeing and then he wound up DEAD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNmiQYN10b0

Patient

14th March 2024, 11:45

I worked in a quality assurance/quality control position many years ago. Quality assurance whether it is in software or hardware is a part of the company that is often not liked as they are responsible for setting back the schedules due to the problems that they sometimes (or more often) find.

As a result the cost of quality control and/or inspections goes up because they are brought back to redo their work.

This is OK when the economy and the company are doing well and overall profit margins are good. But one of the first things to often receive cuts is in the quality control inspection departments. This is often seen as a good move as it can drastically bring down costs and see projects completed more on time.

But it is the consumer that is then testing the product for the company. In software, a company will just release new versions to be uploaded online. But a product like a coffee maker will be returned to the store. Unfortunately aircraft find out they have problems in the air.

We are also seeing this with the electric vehicles. The consumer is finding the problems for the company.

Every airline manufacturer should be paying attention to the issues seen at Boeing and review where they have recently been cutting costs.

I bet many people have seen lower quality products these days across the board. Some things just cause frustration but many things can cause major damage and lives.

Johnnycomelately

14th March 2024, 13:10

mountain_jim

14th March 2024, 14:04

copying here

https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1768006627184062769?s=20

1768006627184062769

Michel Leclerc

14th March 2024, 22:13

In the 80s already it was clear for all serious executives and all serious management consultants that Quality Control or Quality Assurance was not the way to go, but Total Quality Management was. Japanese companies tended to be run that way, and soon enough German companies as well. (Incidentally: as soon as they became threats to the US business hegemony, forerunners of the Northstream sabotage were put into action.)

The more quality control you have, the more quality defects you will have – because production management and quality management depend on each other for their existence, so the voice of wisdom knew. If however you ensure a Total Quality management strategy, you render production departments responsible for their quality, and quality “control” is no longer necessary.

Total Quality involves the establishment of exhaustive specifications for all elements and aspects of a product or service according to fixed tolerances.

Failures as the ones described betray a management failure of the manufacturer to implement aTotal Quality strategy.

But also on the purchasing side. There is such a thing as Total Acquisition Quality.

Hym

14th March 2024, 23:36

Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas after MD had the same cargo door problems that became disasters. In the initial testing, in 1968, MD testing engineers predicted "catastrophic results", due to rapid decompression after the cargo hold area door in testing was blown out and away from the fuselage. The design problems were not ever re-designed until disaster struck. Not even a miracle of pilot adaptation to loss of partial control was warning enough for the manufacturer to ground all flights, redesign the doors and rebuild them all. The poorly designed MD DC-10 cargo door opened outward, unlike all of the other cargo doors built into other aircraft designs, which opened inward, never to fail.

In 1972, it was just that same door on the DC-10, that failed, resulting in the rapid decompression that pulled out the aft section of the passenger area floor above the cargo hold, where no passengers were seated. By sheer mastery of his craft the pilot, after having lost the ability to direct the jet without steering, used the engines themselves, power varying to each engine, to guide the plane to an abandoned air force base runway that happened to now be occupied by a Sunday afternoon picnic of those who had just attended a local drag race competition. No one died that time. McDonnell Douglas was that ignorant not to see just how fortunate they were in living thru a design catastrophe and then not acting immediately to save further loss of life. As in both of these companies' real world profit focus, being part of the most lucrative SSPrograms showed just why they were in the businesses they were in, where loss of life is an accepted part of them doing business.

Two more complete failures later, after the loss of life on two flights, the NTSB and the FAA ordered the problem to be solved. The payout from one of those airline tragedies cost MD $80 Million to settle the loss-of-life lawsuits. It wasn't long after that Boeing bought MD. Something about doors staring these careless airlines in the face, even with the large lawsuits looming. The undercover Al Jazeera testimonies from those building these planes is reason enough to question the safety of any airliner build before choosing to put your life at risk flying in one of them.

mountain_jim

15th March 2024, 14:00

https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1768517997285482626?s=20

1768517997285482626

BREAKING:

Boeing whistleblower said this before his death to his friend Jennifer.

"If anything happens to me"

"It's not suicide"

🚨🚨🚨

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/boeing-whistleblower-if-anything-happens-me-its-not-suicide

Boeing Whistleblower: "If Anything Happens to Me, It's Not Suicide"

BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, MAR 15, 2024 - 09:00 AM
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news (https://modernity.news/2024/03/15/boeing-whistleblower-if-anything-happens-to-me-its-not-suicide),

The Boeing whistleblower who supposedly killed himself reportedly told a close family friend not to believe it if it was announced he had committed suicide.

62-year-old John Barnett died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the Charleston County coroner’s office in South Carolina said earlier this week.

Barnett had previously raised concerns about the company’s production issues having worked for the company for 32 years before leaving in 2017.

According to his attorneys, Barnett had “exposed very serious safety problems with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and was retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment” and was in the middle of a legal deposition against Boeing.

“He was in very good spirits and really looking forward to putting this phase of his life behind him and moving on. We didn’t see any indication he would take his own life. No one can believe it,” said the attorneys.

< more at link >

Bill Ryan

16th March 2024, 12:08

Now this has happened. One might not believe it if all this was in a movie.

https://zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-737-139-passengers-loses-external-panel-mid-air

Boeing 737 With 139 Passengers Loses External Panel Mid-Air

Literally, not a day goes by without Boeing suffering some major incident, whether it is doors and tires falling off, runway excursions, engine fires, hydraulic leaks, pilot seats flailing around the cockpit and slamming the yoke and, OH YEAH, a "suicided (https://www.zerohedge.com/political/boeing-whistleblower-if-anything-happens-me-its-not-suicide)" whistleblower who told a close friend if anything happened to him, it most certainly wasn't suicide.

Well, we can now add one more: a United Airlines flight - because it's never American or Delta... always United - that took off from San Francisco International Airport Friday morning landed in Oregon with a missing external panel, abc7 reported (https://abc7.com/united-flight-missing-panel-san-francisco-medford-oregon/14529748/)citing to officials.

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/boeing%20panel%20lost.jpg?itok=hphyN8xC

As the NY Post notes (https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/us-news/boeing-737-loses-external-panel-mid-flight/), United Airlines Flight 433 departed from San Francisco around 10:20 a.m. local time and landed safely at its intended destination, Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, about 70 minutes later, according to airport officials and flight data (https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL433).

Once the plane reached the gate, an external panel was found to be missing, halting operations at the airport while a runway safety check was conducted, airport director Amber Judd told The NY Post.

Amazingly, there was no indication of a problem and no emergency was ever declared during the flight, which had 139 passengers and 6 crew members on board, according to United.

Airport staff searched for the missing panel on the airport premises, but were unable to locate it.

“After finding no debris on the airfield, normal operations at MFR resumed a few minutes later,” she said.

United Airlines said it plans a “thorough examination” of the 25-year-old plane and will “perform all the needed repairs before it returns to service.” Who knows, maybe another whistleblower will "commit suicide" too.

“We’ll also conduct an investigation to better understand how this damage occurred,” the airline added.

The Federal Aviation Administration will also investigate the incident, a spokesperson said.

Incidents have plagued Boeing airplane in the past few weeks: on Monday, a United Airlines Flight heading from Sydney to San Francisco, was forced to turn around mid-flight due to a hydraulic leak. The Boeing 777-300 plane, which was carrying 167 passengers and 16 crew member, landed safely back in Sydney.

Hours earlier, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner en route Sydney to Auckland, New Zealand experienced a technical issue that resulted in injuries to 50 passengers. Then, a United Airlines flight from San Francisco to Japan diverted to Los Angeles International Airport on March 7 after a tire on the Boeing 777-20 fell off after takeoff, damaging cars in a parking lot on the ground.

Boeing told its employees in a memo Tuesday that the company is implementing weekly compliance checks for every 737 work area and additional equipment audits to reduce quality problems.

It isn't quite clear what is behind the recent surge in incidents which are just too many to keep track of at this point...
... but one thing is certain: more are coming, which one can only hope won't be fatal.

Bill Ryan

17th March 2024, 18:29

A cool, rational, 10-minute video that may be worth watching for anyone who's been following this closely.

VERY interesting to read are the many detailed YT comments from former Boeing engineers on both this video and others posted recently on this excellent channel. They all tell the exact same story, about how reports of manufacturing errors and component failures are flat-out ignored by Boeing management in the name of profits and 'efficiency'.

:flower:

The Boeing Scandal just got a LOT Worse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a32RLgqNfGs

Bill Ryan

2nd May 2024, 13:59

A SECOND Boeing whistleblower has died. This has to be suspicious. You can barely make this up. :flower:

From Zero Hedge today:

https://zerohedge.com/political/it-was-brutal-2nd-boeing-linked-whistleblower-dies

"It Was Brutal": 2nd Boeing-Linked Whistleblower Dies

A whistleblower at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems died Tuesday morning following a struggle with a 'sudden, fast-spreading infection,' the Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/whistleblower-josh-dean-of-boeing-supplier-spirit-aerosystems-has-died/) reports.

45-year-old Joshua Dean, a former mechanical engineer and quality auditor from Wichita, Kansas, alleged that Spirit leadership ignored manufacturing defects on the 737 MAX, including 'mechanics improperly drilling holes in the aft pressure bulkhead of the MAX.' When he brought this up with management, he said that nothing was done about it. So he filed a safety complaint with the FAA - and said that Spirit had used him as a scapegoat while they lied to the agency about the defects.

"After I was fired, Spirit AeroSystems did nothing to inform the FAA, and the public" regarding the bulkhead defects, said Dean in his complaint.

In November, the FAA suggested to Dean in a letter that his claims had merit, writing "The investigation determined that your allegations were appropriately addressed under an FAA-approved safety program," adding "However, due to the privacy provisions of those programs, specific details cannot be released."

Dean also gave a deposition in a Spirit shareholder lawsuit.
[I]The shareholder lawsuit alleging that Spirit management withheld information on the quality flaws and harmed stockholders was filed in December. Supporting the suit, Dean provided a deposition detailing his allegations.
After a panel blew off a Boeing 737 MAX plane in January, bringing new attention to the quality lapses at Spirit, one of Dean’s former Spirit colleagues confirmed some of Dean’s allegations (https://archive.is/o/VaLw2/https://www.seattletimes.com/business/with-boeing-in-hot-seat-claims-against-supplier-spirit-aerosystems-take-shape/). -Seattle Times
He had been in good health, and 'was noted for having a healthy lifestyle,' according to the report.

He had been in critical condition for two weeks, according to his aunt Carol Parsons, who said he became ill and went to the hospital due to breathing difficulties. He was intubated, after which he developed pneumonia and then MRSA, a serious bacterial infection.
His condition deteriorated rapidly, and he was airlifted from Wichita to a hospital in Oklahoma City, Parsons said. There he was put on an ECMO machine, which circulates and oxygenates a patient’s blood outside the body, taking over heart and lung function when a patient’s organs don’t work on their own. -Seattle Times
Doctors had considered amputating both hands and both feet.

"It was brutal what he went through," said Parsons. "Heartbreaking."

Dean was fired in April 2023, after which he filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, alleging he had been terminated in retaliation for blowing the whistle.

He was represented by the South Carolina law firm that represented Boeing whistleblower John "Mitch" Barnett, who was found dead in an 'apparent suicide' (https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/key-boeing-whistleblower-found-dead-apparent-suicide) in March in Charleston.

Barnett was in the middle of giving depositions suggesting that Boeing retaliated against him over complaints related to quality issues when he was found dead from a gunshot wound.

bojancan

3rd May 2024, 02:03

Yes, it is suspicious .... or, is he took a jab?

Is Someone Behind the Deaths of Boeing Whistleblowers? | Vantage with Palki Sharma
tUV3DQeiNx8

Another BOEING Whistleblower DIES; Joshua Dean, 44, 2nd Dead In 2 Month
zMMYTsVv9KM

norman

8th May 2024, 03:22

The plot thickens

https://twitter.com/USMiniTru/status/1786452789301833988
1786452789301833988

Ravenlocke

8th May 2024, 22:31

Text:

‼️🇺🇸✈️🇹🇷 #FedEx Airlines, #Boeing-made plane forced to land in Istanbul without front wheels.

A FedEx Airlines cargo plane was forced to land in #Turkey without the use of its front landing gear on Wednesday morning, May 8, the Turkish transport ministry said.

Turkey opened an investigation into the incident.

https://x.com/MaimunkaNews/status/1788246134852354101

1788246134852354101

https://x.com/SputnikInt/status/1788206249802113402

1788206249802113402

norman

10th May 2024, 01:55

Plane parts from Boeing’s biggest supplier regularly left the factory riddled with defects: Whistleblower
Brendan Taylor - May 9, 2024

https://insiderpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NicePng_boeing-logo-png_649150-990x636.png
A whistleblower said that plane parts from Boeing’s main supplier often had many defects when they left the factory, The Sun reported. Santiago Paredes, who used to be a quality inspector at Spirit AeroSystems in Kansas, has spoken out against the plane manufacturer.

Boeing’s ex-inspector claims to have found up to 200 defects in plane parts

Paredes told the BBC that he frequently found up defects on parts about to be shipped to Boeing. According to the former quality inspector, he was used to discovering “anywhere from 50 to 100, 200” flaws on fuselages. Or the main body of the aircraft, that were scheduled for shipment to Boeing.

He said he got the nickname “showstopper” because he would slow down production while trying to address the issues he found. “I was finding a lot of missing fasteners, a lot of bent parts, sometimes even missing parts,” he claimed.

He told the BBC that some of the defects he found at Spirit were minor, but others were more serious. He also claimed that he faced pressure to be less thorough in his inspections.

The whistleblower made his accusations against Spirit AeroSystems in an exclusive interview with the BBC and CBS, sharing his experiences from his time at the company between 2010 and 2022. This is the first time Paredes, who used to be an Air Force mechanic, has spoken publicly about these issues.

Spirit AeroSystems (https://www.spiritaero.com) denies claims

Spirit AeroSystems stated that it “strongly disagrees” with the accusations made against it. “We are vigorously defending against his claims,” said a spokesperson for Spirit, which remains Boeing’s largest supplier.

Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems are facing heavy criticism after a new 737 Max had a door fall off shortly after take-off in January, causing a large hole in the side of the plane. Investigators say that Spirit initially installed the door, but Boeing technicians later removed it to fix issues with faulty riveting.

The incident led the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration to start an audit of the production practices at Spirit AeroSystems and Boeing (https://insiderpaper.com/boeing-reports-loss-of-343-mn-on-lower-plane-deliveries/). The audit uncovered several instances where both companies didn’t meet proper manufacturing controls.

Spirit Evergreen Aftermarket Solutions Joint Venture ready to Serve Asia-Pacific Aftermarket Customers (https://www.spiritaero.com/pages/release/spirit-evergreen-aftermarket-solutions-joint-venture-ready-to-serve-asia-pacific-aftermarket-customers/)

I went looking to see if "Evergreen" might be connected to the Evergreen ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal but someone better than I will have to do that.