|News||Neoliberalism||Recommended Links||Financilization of economy as the mechanism of redistributing the wealth up||Boeing 737 MAX fiasco||Classification of Corporate Psychopaths||Neoclassical Pseudo Theories and Crooked and Bought Economists|
|Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime||Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite||Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners"||Financial Sector Induced Systemic Instability of Economy||In Goldman Sachs we trust: classic example of regulatory capture by financial system hackers||The Deep State||Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism|
|The Great Transformation||Neoliberalism as secular religion, "idolatry of money"||The Iron Law of Oligarchy||Ayn Rand and her Objectivism Cult||Over-consumption of Luxury Goods as Market Failure||Globalization of Financial Flows||Globalization of Corporatism|
|Greenspan as the Chairman of Financial Politburo||Friedman --founder of Chicago school of deification of market||Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism||Techno-fundamentalism||Neoliberalism Bookshelf||Greenspan humor||Etc|
If a single root cause has predominated in explanations of the current global financial crisis, it is ‘deregulation’.
Lack of state oversight of financial markets and multinationals is widely cited. In 2008 it permitted the over-leveraging of financial institutions, based on weakly securitized debt, that has brought 2008 financial crisis and subsequnt "secular stagnation" period which last till this day.
This diagnosis of the cause of the crisis also steers towards a particular solution: if deregulation allowed markets to get out of control, then we must look to re-regulation as the way out. The subprime crisis was the result of at least two decades of laissez-faire policies, resulting in excessive financial growth and instability
Rampant greed is as harmful in aviation industry as in financial industry.
For many authors, this focus on ‘deregulation’ in explaining the current crisis is closely the shifting boundaries between state and market under meolineralism, when that state became the promoter of markets instead of regulator. From this perspective, we may now be witnessing the start of a movement to re-regulated the private industry and especial finafial industry and multinationals.
Another problems is the offshoring, outsourcing and deregulation are increasing commodification which generates such suffering and displacement of the population.
The era’s hegemonic self-representation of finafial capital and multinationsla -- the key tenets of neoliberal ideology is probably close to its end. The retreat of public institutions from social and economic life should be stopped, unless US elite awnat a social explostion that can pipe it out like in zarist Russia.
Trump neoliberal practices is actually a betreal of electorate, his Tweets notwithstatding and I dount that he will be re-elected.
Of course it has become commonplace to assert that under neoliberalism finanfial oligfarchy controls the state and that's why financial deregulations was allowed to proceed int he first place. Neoliberalism and financial deregulation are just two sides of the same medal.
Deregulation commitment removes legal barriers to dangerious and recless bhaviour of banks and multinationals. The rampant abuse strated immeduatly after the Clinton Administration’s repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act.
Boeing fiasco is just another manifestation of the danger of neoliberal deregulation. There is nothing new in it by itself, but due to human lives involved probably there will be some superficial measures to reign on the rampant abuse of legal system and safety regulations by multinationals
Oct 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
browning , Oct 20 2019 15:02 utc | 12I don't know if this was mentioned in the 737Max threads: The NYTimes Magazine of Oct. 13 carried a letter, in response to the Langewiesche article, which appeared earlier in the Times Magazine and was discussed at MOA. The letter was by Capt. Chesley (Sully) Sullenberger who captured everyone's imagination landing safely in the Hudson River. He cuts Langewiesche to pieces.
Langewiesche minimizes the design flaws and certification failures that precipitated those tragedies, and still pose a threat to the flying public.
Inadequate pilot training and experience do not excuse the fatally flawed design of the [MCAS] that was a death trap. The MCAS design should never have been approved -- not by Boeing, and not by the FAA.
We need to fix all the flaws in the current system -- corporate governance, regulatory oversight, aircraft maintenance and, yes, pilot training and experience. Only then can we ensure the safety of everyone who flies.
Oct 15, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Two weeks ago the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) released a 13 pages long recommendation (pdf) resulting from its investigation into the 737 MAX incidents. Since we dicussed that damning report more bad news for Boeing has come out.
- Boeing's general business is not doing well.
- A newly found structural defect on older 737 NG planes, the predecessor of the 737 MAX, will ground a significant number of those planes.
- There are new damning revelations about the 737 MAX development process that have led to two deadly accidents. The Southwest pilot associated is suing Boeing for making false statements. A whistleblower asserts that Boeing left out safety features because of their costs. A Joint Authorities Technical Review will make it more difficult for Boeing to 'upgrade' older airplane types.
- There are further delays in the MAX return into the air.
As AirInsight analyst Ernest Arvai summarizes :The MAX is grounded, the 787 is being investigated for quality issues and has major engine problems, the 777-X is even further delayed with engine problems, and the KC-46 is failing to meet needs and currently restricted from carrying passengers and cargo. Now, the prior generation 737NG is developing serious premature failure of structural components that should last the lifetime of the aircraft, and could result in an additional financial drain. We've been looking for good news about Boeing, but simply can't find any.
An order for 22 of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner was canceled . Without new orders the two production lines for the 787 will need only 40 more months to finish the outstanding orders. That is a relative short backlog for a large passenger jet production line. Boeing needs a new mid-range product but has little time to work on it.
Boeing's overall orderbook is shrinking :Boeing's net order tally, including cancellations, was a negative 84 for the first nine months of 2019, also hit by the bankruptcy of India's Jet Airways, which resulted in Boeing removing 210 aircraft from its order backlog.
During the conversion of a 737 NG passenger jet into a freighter plane Boeing found serious defects on a structural component that was supposed to have a longer lifetime than the plane. Boeing notified the FAA:The FAA has issued an Air Worthiness Directive (AD) for high time Boeing 737 NGs, requiring immediate inspections for cracks in their wing attachments called pickle forks.
The cracks were discovered on high time aircraft which were torn down for conversion to freighters. The affected 737 types are NG only; the MAX and Classic have a different wing attachment design.
The issued AD affects Boeing 737 NG aircraft with over 22,600 flight cycles (flights). These shall be inspected within one year. For aircraft with more than 30,000 flight cycles, the inspection shall be completed within one week from the effective date of the AD.
The central wingbox is the structure where the wings are attached to the planes body.
Two frames (STA 540) at the front and the rear of the wingbox carry the load into the upper body structure.
At the lower end of these frames are the forged 'pickle forks' that are riveted to the wingbox.
This is how the whole construct looks in real life.
The planes with these defects (pdf) have been grounded as such cracks tend to grow and a failure of the structure would likely end catastrophically.
The planes are supposed to make up to 90,000 flights throughout their life without such structural damages. The first inspection round showed that the problem is systematic and serious:The results of the first week of inspections are 5% of the inspected aircraft have cracks with the lowest flight cycle aircraft with cracks at 23,600 flights.
Each plane will take three weeks to repair. But the supply of replacement parts for the cracked component is limited and it may take longer to produce new ones.
It is not clear yet what causes the cracks in the forged aluminum part. Many older NG were retrofitted with winglets on the tips of their wings. These may have led to unforeseen loads or vibrations. It is possible that some of the younger 737 NG airplanes have a similar problem.
This is bad news for those airlines that exclusively fly Boeing 737 planes. Not only are their new 737 MAX planes grounded but a significant share of their older 737 NG fleets will also come off the flight line and will require lengthy repairs.
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association has sued Boeing over its 737 MAX design:"Boeing made a calculated decision to rush a re-engined aircraft to market to secure its single-aisle market share and prioritize its bottom line," the introduction to the suit states. "In doing so, Boeing abandoned sound design and engineering practices, withheld safety critical information from regulators and deliberately mislead its customers, pilots and the public.
"Boeing's misrepresentations caused SWAPA to believe that the 737 MAX aircraft was safe," the suit goes on, then adds starkly: "Those representations proved to be false."
The suit includes (pdf) some remarkable facts:120. The risk profile and required risk assessment of the second iteration of MCAS was completely different from the first, and yet Boeing neither assessed that increased risk nor even attempted to mitigate it. Instead, Boeing used its ODA authority to hide this information.
This is a point we made several times in our writings about the MAX. Boeing has claimed that an MCAS failure was a 'runaway stabilizer' incident for which no extra training was needed. The Southwest pilots disagree:229. An MCAS failure is not like a runaway stabilizer. A runaway stabilizer has continuous un-commanded movement of the tail, whereas MCAS is not continuous and pilots (theoretically) can counter the nose-down movement, after which MCAS would move the aircraft tail down again.
SWAPA is suing Boeing because the assertions it made about the 737 MAX were directly relevant for the union's negotiations with Southwest:7. Boeing's false representations, made directly to SWAPA, caused SWAPA to agree, despite its initial reluctance, to include the 737 MAX as a term in its collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with Southwest. The aircraft's grounding is now causing SWAPA pilots to lose millions of dollars each month because the 737 MAX was removed from Southwest's flight schedule, and from SWAPA pilots' paychecks as well.
It will cost Boeing some $100 million to settle the suit. That will only be a small part of the total damage the 737 MAX problems caused the company. But the additional public relation damage will be significant.
A Boeing engineer has come forward to say that Boeing rejected safety upgrades because of their costs:The ethics charge, filed by 33-year-old engineer Curtis Ewbank, whose job involved studying past crashes and using that information to make new planes safer, describes how around 2014 his group presented to managers and senior executives a proposal to add various safety upgrades to the MAX.
The complaint, a copy of which was reviewed by The Seattle Times, suggests that one of the proposed systems could have potentially prevented the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people. Three of Ewbank's former colleagues interviewed for this story concurred.
The proposed but rejected changes would have prevented false cockpit alarms. The point is crucial because the Angle-of-Attack sensor failures that caused both 737 MAX accidents led to a number of confusing alarms which made it difficult for the pilots to diagnose the problem. It has since been revealed that Boeing had received exceptions from current regulatory rules that demand a better alarming system:In 2014, Boeing convinced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to relax the safety standards for the new 737 MAX related to cockpit alerts that would warn pilots if something went wrong during flight, according to documents reviewed by the Seattle Times.
Seeking an exception, Boeing relied on a special FAA rule to successfully argue that full compliance with the latest federal requirements would be "impractical" for the MAX and would cost too much.
The Seattle Times reviewed the relevant parts of the document that Boeing submitted to the FAA to win its exception. They show the federal regulator struck out four separate clauses that would be requirements for any new jet being produced today. This meant Boeing avoided having to design a complete upgrade of the 737's aging flight-crew-alerting system.
On the Ethiopian Airlines flight that crashed in March, the pilots faced a barrage of alerts throughout the six-minute flight. Besides the stick-shaker, they heard repeated loud "DON'T SINK" warnings that the jet was too close to the ground; a "clacker" making a very loud clicking sound to signal the jet was going too fast; and multiple warning lights telling the crew the speed, altitude and other readings on their instruments were unreliable.
The use of old certification standards when updating a plane is a major point of criticism raised by a new report :The Federal Aviation Administration, which approved the design of the jet in 2017, dropped the ball on many fronts, the Joint Authorities Technical Review found. A 69-page summary of the findings also said the panel found evidence that Boeing exerted "undue pressures" on some of its own employees who had FAA authority to approve design changes.
The JATR report is damning for both, Boeing and the FAA. It describes all the known failures and makes 12 recommendations that will change the way how old plane types can be 'upgraded' into a new version. FAA exceptions like the ones above will no longer be possible:Changed Product Rules (..) and associated guidance (..) should be revised to require a top-down approach whereby every change is evaluated from an integrated whole aircraft system perspective. These revisions should include criteria for determining when core attributes of an existing transport category aircraft design make it incapable of supporting the safety advancements introduced by the latest regulations and should drive a design change or a need for a new type certificate. The aircraft system includes the aircraft itself with all its subsystems, the flight crew, and the maintenance crew.
If implemented the recommendation will make another 737 MAX impossible. A future upgrade of an old plane type will have to conform with the current regulation to a much larger extent and can no longer rely on the old rules to which it was originally designed. If this gets applied to the currently grounded 737 MAX, which may be possible, the plane will never fly again. Current Boeing plans to upgrade its 777 with new wings and engines might also be in trouble. Thoughts about upgrading the 767 will have to be put aside.
Other JATR recommendations criticize the FAA's delegation system that allowed Boeing engineers to self-certify some design changes. Other points are the general lack of human factor analysis and problems with evaluating pilot training necessities.
A few observations in the JATR report will have some engineers shake their heads. This lack of functionality in Boeing's engineering simulator is, for example, inexcusable:Observation O3.13-A: During evaluation in the Boeing engineering simulator (E-Cab), the JATR team observed that the device does not incorporate control loading on the manual stabilizer trim wheel. As a result, control forces on the manual stabilizer trim wheel are not representative of the aircraft.
The manual trim is required to bring the plane back into normal flight after the electric trim or MCAS failed. That is currently not always possible because the aerodynamic forces in certain situations are too great to be overcome with the manual wheel. The European regulator noted that as a major problem that Boeing has to rectify. That Boeing was not even able to simulate this is mind boggling.
It is also damning for Boeing and the FAA that the report's authors had to include this eternal engineering truth:[I]n the hierarchy of safety solutions, mitigation by design should be prioritized over warnings and training/procedures.
This comment from a pilot forum is also very relevant:Finding F3.5-C The JATR team considers that the STS/MCAS and EFS functions could be considered as stall identification systems or stall protection systems, depending on the natural (unaugmented) stall characteristics of the aircraft. From its data review, the JATR team was unable to completely rule out the possibility that these augmentation systems function as a stall protection system.
In my words, it seems unclear to this day, whether the MAX is sufficiently aerodynamically stable in pitch or not. Whether the MAX requires a full blown stall envelope protection including all the mandatory redundancy, or not, may decide the fate of her certification.
The Seattle Times has more on the JATR report.
As a consequence of all the above some industry analysts have called for the firing of the CEO and of long term board members of Boeing.
Yesterday the Boeing board took the first step and demoted its chairman and CEO:With pressure mounting on the Boeing board and increased public concern about a need to revamp the company's safety culture, the board on Friday took away Dennis Muilenburg's role as company chairman, separating that position from his chief executive role.
Muilenburg will remain CEO and president, and will stay on the board of directors, while lead director David Calhoun was elected to replace him as chairman.
It is generally assumed that Muilenburg will be fired as CEO as soon as the MAX disaster is over.
This will still take several months.
While the new MCAS software is allegedly ready to be cerified there are still many open points that international certification authorities have asked Boeing to rectify. The European regulator wants more testing to be done to the changes to the Flight Control Computers: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 is to add redundancy by having both computers work simultaneously 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 data to automated systems, alternating between flights. The concerns were passed on by EASA chief Patrick Ky to Ali Bahrami, the FAA's top safety official, one of the people said.
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.
Boeing engineers are frustrated EASA hasn't specified what additional measures might allay its objections, according to people close to the discussions.
The last paragraph is astonishing. It is not the task of a regulator to tell Boeing engineers how to solve their problems. The regulators set the rules and check if a manufacturer's engineering solutions comply with those.
That Boeing still does not get that and is looking for easy ways out of its problems shows that the company has yet to learn its lesson.
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:
- Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 12 2019
- Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight - Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 17 2019
- Regulators Knew Of 737 MAX Trim Problems - Certification Demanded Training That Boeing Failed To Deliver - March 29 2019
- Ethiopian Airline Crash - Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed - April 9 2019
- Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs - May 25 2019
- Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer - June 27 2019
- EASA Tells Boeing To Fix 5 Major 737 MAX Issues - July 7 2019
- The New Delay Of Boeing's 737 MAX Return Will Not Be The Last One - July 15 2019
- 737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified - July 28 2019
- 737 MAX - Boeing Insults International Safety Regulators As New Problems Cause Longer Grounding - September 3 2019
- Boeing Foresees Return Of The 737 MAX In November - But Not Everywhere - September 12 2019
- 14,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX Failure - September 18 2019
- Boeing Failed To Consider Pilot Workload When It Designed and Tested The 737 MAX - September 29 2019
Posted by b on October 12, 2019 at 18:31 UTC | Permalink
Walter , Oct 12 2019 18:56 utc | 1About cracks and the nonlinear nature of some failure modes some may wish to read. Eberhart's Why Things Break - it is useful.psychohistorian , Oct 12 2019 18:58 utc | 2
I am very sorry to see Boeing doing this stuff, especially over, it seems, years. Another icon in flames, alas...Thanks for the ongoing coverage of the human life lost because profit bb , Oct 12 2019 19:08 utc | 3
I read on Reuters this past week that Boeing is in negotiation to purchase Embraer from Brazil who makes smaller airplanes. I con only conjecture that Boeing's ongoing financialization intentions would be to drive that company into the ground like they are doing with Boeing.
How come none of the leadership of Boeing is in jail facing murder charges?I read on Reuters this past week that Boeing is in negotiation to purchase Embraer from Brazil who makes smaller airplanes.psychohistorian , Oct 12 2019 19:19 utc | 4
Boeing needs to do that because it tried to screw Bombardier and was outmaneuvered by Airbus. A failure that should have cost Muilenburg's head.
How Boeing Tried to Kill a Great Airplane -- and Got Outplayed
As soon as Boeing's top management understood what they were looking at they didn't like it.
Another company had produced a paragon of an airplane and they had nothing to match it. And so Boeing decided they had to do as much harm to that airplane's chances as they could -- most of all, to stop any American airline from buying it.
The company was Bombardier, based in Canada. The airplane was the Bombardier C Series, a single-aisle jet that, in several versions, could seat between 100 and 150 passengers.
Boeing's formidable Washington lobbying machine swung into action. Dennis Muilenburg, the Boeing CEO, had already cozied-up to Trump by agreeing to cut the costs of the future Air Force One jets. In September 2017, the Commerce Department announced a killing blow to Bombardier, imposing a 300 percent duty on every C Series sold in the US.
But on Oct. 16, 2017, to the amazement of the whole aerospace industry, Airbus announced it was taking a 51 percent stake -- not in Bombardier itself but in the C Series program. Without any down payment.
In one stroke Airbus had changed the future of the airline industry. And out-gamed Boeing.
To ram home just how much Airbus was now able to out-game Boeing, they said they would build a final assembly line for the C Series in Alabama for those sold to American airlines, thereby removing the vulnerability to tariffs. (Many components of the jet were, in any case, made in America, in addition to the engines.)
@ Posted by: b | Oct 12 2019 19:08 utc | 3Jen , Oct 12 2019 19:36 utc | 5
Thanks for the follow up b. Since I send you a check yearly you know that Bombardier is my last name but along with that I am 7 generations removed from the linage that started the Bombardier company.
I like to think I have inherited some of the creativity of the founder and met his son and daughter in the mid 1980's. As an occasional sailor and cross country skier I detest the noise of the Seadoo and Skidoo but they have a fairly good reputation still from what I hear and read. Due to their international popularity they have conditioned me and others in my family to change the pronunciation of our last name to the French manner.....grinAs the Clive Irving / The Daily Beast article that B linked to @ 3 illustrates, a culture that prizes short-term profits and cost-cutting, and which denigrates innovation, risk-taking and pride in providing a consistent standard of engineering excellence and safety, is dominant at Boeing. Sacking Dennis Muilenberg and a few other Board Directors will do very little to change that culture. The entire organisational structure needs examining and change. Even the shareholder ownership and how that is structured should be investigated and reformed.marxist , Oct 12 2019 19:39 utc | 6
Moving Boeing's headquarters back to Seattle to be close to where most engineers and technical support work, and where most of the manufacture of the planes is located, away from the influence of neoliberal ideology emanating from hired brainwashed University of Chicago graduates, would be a start.Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 12 2019 18:58 utc | 2bjd , Oct 12 2019 20:00 utc | 7
How come none of the leadership of Boeing is in jail facing murder charges?
It is state capitalism.Starbucks, Microsoft, Boeing. There's a theme here.bjd , Oct 12 2019 20:19 utc | 8
It's regulatory capture, one of the terrific by-products of naked capitalism. In essence: you count dollars, not bodies.Lochearn , Oct 12 2019 20:21 utc | 9
b. you mention Southwest, which has been Boeing's most loyal customer for almost five decades. It was the first airline to use one make and model of aircraft exclusively – the Boeing 737. Boeing used Southwest to carry out tests on new aircraft and the Southwest fleet was always serviced by Boeing. In some respects its history mirrors that of Boeing, in other ways it doesn't.c1ue , Oct 12 2019 20:35 utc | 10
From its origins in the early 1970s Southwest seemed to defy business logic. It was the only airline that constantly produced expected returns for Wall Street and at one point its market capitalization was higher than those of its far larger competitors, such as Delta. But it has a strong union and was always one of the companies in the US people most wanted to work for. It's founder and CEO, Herb Kelleher, is a most remarkable fellow. He brought in a completely new ethic of employees first just when in the late 1970s neoliberalism began to do the exact opposite and Jack Welch began to slash jobs at GE, bringing in a top down, management consultant-run, macho culture. At Southwest decision-making was devolved down to the customer-facing employee and assigning blame was strictly forbidden. A sense of fun at work was explicitly encouraged including dressing up and acting plain daft. For a few days a year roles would be switched around, so pilots worked as cabin crew, cabin crew as gate staff, etc. Even Herb himself pitched in when a plane was late. So news began to spread about how this airline went out of its way for both its staff and passengers. And, of course, staff would reciprocate by going out of their way for the airline. And tickets were really cheap due to fast turnarounds.
Other companies came to study Southwest. Even the dreaded Irish company Ryanair went to Texas. But none of them could replicate what Herb called "the emotional intelligence." And lets not forget the remarkable COO Coleen Brennan. When a cabin crew member was failing to perform to his usual standards she discovered he had just had a very costly divorce and owed $18,000 in lawyer's fees. Coleen wrote him a check for that sum from her own bank account.
Then Herb retired in 2005 and Southwest appears to have followed all the rest, including Boeing. Just one small example but highly indicative. A few years after Herb left they forced a young woman off a plane because her skirt was too short. In Herb's day this would have been inconceivable. Far more likely would have been someone announcing in a joking tone: "We have to warn you all. There's a passenger with a very short skirt so whatever you do don't look!"@Lochearn #10VietnamVet , Oct 12 2019 20:58 utc | 11
I do wonder how the 737 MAX's troubles impact Southwest Airlines.
SWA pretty much is fully 737. This article from 2016 talks about SWA and Lion Air being the 2 largest customers for the 737 MAX, and that SWA was postponing some of its previous committed order even back then.
Note that Lion Air was one of the 737 MAX crashes...The slow-motion collapse of Boeing is due to the extraction of wealth from businesses and the middle class to financiers in the West. Boeing was the last American major manufacturing industry. No more. What is astonishing is the avoidance of looking at the reasons why except here at MofA. The collapse is visible from PG&E shutting off electricity to 2 million people in California to Boris Johnson's Halloween. As far as I can tell, the desert approaches to Aramco's oil facilities are still defenseless. If the Saudis don't make peace with the Houthis, a global economic crash will result from the resumptions of missile attacks and the cutoff of oil from Saudi Arabia. But there has been no movement towards peace, re-instituting the rule of law, and jailing corporate criminals for manslaughter. Instead a Coup is underway to remove an elected Presidentchu teh , Oct 12 2019 21:09 utc | 12"That Boeing was not even able to simulate this is mind boggling."Amir , Oct 12 2019 21:12 utc | 13
This is "mind-boggling" only to a mind that is missing vital data. To wit: It was known that any use of the simulator to mimic physical demands required by a pilot to handle the trim-wheel to correct a situation would, of necessity, demonstrate pilot failure to handle situation. Such a demonstration would preclude issue FAA "air worthiness" certification.
Therefore, the simulator must not be upgraded to use the known factors of physical demands. If the physical demands were demonstrated, there would be actual records of pilot failures that could not be suppressed from regulatory exposure and resulting Boeing liability and exposure of the fraud. [Likewise, simulation tests were not conducted including full interaction of MCAS program with single or multiple false AOA signals.]
As it was, there was no record of actual failures prior to the crashes, that could not be handled by Public Relations confusion, intimidation, bribery, etc. [with emphasis on the "etc".]
The takeover of America by corporations has been accomplished, and their legal enforcer is the American government whose decision makers are real persons under control by said corporations [including trusts and foundations and other ersatz, fake, legal constructions].
That is what Mussolini meant by defining Fascism as merger of gov and corporations [which is only a handy English translation of his actual language]. And that is why he chose the symbol of the fasces. The fasces symbolized the power to judge, punish and kill that was vested in the Roman magistrate displaying the symbol.
Corporations [etc.] rule. Government is their legal enforcer.
[Why corporations, etc.? Because corporations are immortal; persons die.]Aren't the Iranians lucky that US embargoed the sale of these US aircrafts to Iran. Who new Trump was a Divine Intervention. By trumpeting sanctions against Iran, US saved the lives of Iranian passengers and undermined the Boeing's bottom line. Strange how the Rota Fortunae turns.fx , Oct 12 2019 21:17 utc | 14
So Boeing finally ends Chair of the Board-CEO duality by demoting Muilenburg to CEO only. This comes 17 years after the Sarbanes-Oxley act that, although it failed to mandate an independent Chair (even though that's considered obvious best practice in much of the world, including the UK), at least led many well-governed firms to give up on duality a decade or more ago.Lochearn , Oct 12 2019 21:27 utc | 15
But then Boeing hands the Board Chair role to... Dave Calhoun, who (a) is on the board to represent Blackstone, the squeeze-for-cash private equity fund that has played quite a role in putting Boeing into its investment tailspin, and (b) has been on the board since before the MAX debacle started (whereas Muilenburg can at least claim he was selling inflated weapon systems while the MAX was being designed).
If you own Boeing shares, the writing is on the wall: Sell before Blackstone itself, or some of the other PE vultures, either debt-load Boeing while stripping the cash or outright start to short the stock and take the whole company down on the back of employees, clients and ordinary shareholders.
The silver lining is that a Boeing collapse may be all the better, as far as aviation safety and progress are concerned.@ 12fx , Oct 12 2019 21:32 utc | 16
Your point about the coup against Trump brings us back to last night's quite heated discussion which some of us I think want to avoid – it's a bit like the late Roman emperors. It's what happens when as in the legend of Ouroborus the serpent that begins to eat its own tail ie. eat up all its companies through private equity. Is Trump this or that hardly matters except maybe to postpone the Iran thing.And in another mind-boggling feat of glossing over incompetence and conflicts of interest:Peter AU 1 , Oct 12 2019 21:41 utc | 17
'SWAPA's lawsuit mentions that in July 2016, Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot, Mark Forkner, invited Southwest pilots to participate in training for the differences between the 737 MAX and the previous 737 model already in the airline's fleet.
"Boeing's differences training did not include instructions on MCAS and at no point during Boeing's presentation did Boeing disclose the existence of MCAS or its associated risks," the complaint states.
During the certification of the MAX, it was Forkner who suggested to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in an email that MCAS not be included in the pilot manual.
Forkner left Boeing in 2018 and is now a first officer with Southwest Airlines. Last month, The Seattle Times reported that Forkner has refused to provide documents sought by federal prosecutors investigating the crashes, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.'
That should make an interesting atmosphere in that Southwest cockpit...From b's article - "EASA has signaled, though, that it wants additional risk scenarios examined beyond those in the current testing plan, this person said.Roy G , Oct 12 2019 21:42 utc | 18
Boeing engineers are frustrated EASA hasn't specified what additional measures might allay its objections, according to people close to the discussions."
I cannot access the full WSJ article without subscribing, but going on the section quoted, unless EASA has stated the risk scenarios that need examining, the section quoted reads like the Europeans are squeezing Boeing out.Once denial no longer works, the predictable, and false, refrain will be 'we' can't compete. My wish is that there is a pushback that drives home the real reason for the decline - the Financial Industrial Complex and Private Equity pirates, who have busted out once great companies like Boeing, with bad money driving out good people.Taffyboy , Oct 12 2019 21:49 utc | 19
..."Seeking an exception, Boeing relied on a special FAA rule to successfully argue that full compliance with the latest federal requirements would be "impractical" for the MAX and would cost too much."...chu teh , Oct 12 2019 21:50 utc | 20
Financialized criminals in action. All criminals seek exception to the rule, and bend, twist, contort reality to suit themselves. How any one in authority, and knowledge that are still working for this zombie company, sleep at night! Well I guess when your monetary bed is feathered by crooked individuals you tend not to notice your involvement. Why is no one in jail? Ya, that's right, capitalism in action. Nothing is criminal except smoking a joint!chu teh | Oct 12 2019 21:09 utc | 13Canthama , Oct 12 2019 21:53 utc | 21
As for "corporations [including trusts and foundations and other ersatz, fake, legal constructions]"...
Note the relevance of National Security.There are some 3-letter .gov agencies that operate globally and utterly covertly.
Now understand that MCAS is a software program that spreads beyond America; in fact, it is precisely as global as the sale of 737MAX. And the 737MAX was deliberately marketed as a global best-seller
MCAS is uniquely accessible and controlled by American entities.
Who or what could resist using such for their own quiet purposes? Including a one-off tweak, now and then, on another player on the grand chessboard? It would be so easy; and evidence-free like a disappearing ice-bullet.
Any corporate managers standing in the way could be easily brought under control by just smooth, patriotic-talk with only a hint of consequence for not being reasonable... or if that was too vague, more cooperative.
Anyone can understand the merger of corporations and .gov is a 2-way communication or deal or enterprise or path to riches or, in the most resistive case, an existential event?Boeing is just another Corporate America criminal company, not first and not the last one, it places profits above all other possible values, as human lives, ethics, moral and safety. This is a corruption that is deep inside Corporate America, I know from inside one large Corporation, I opted out for not agreeing with their MO.Lochearn , Oct 12 2019 21:54 utc | 22
In a normal and fair world, which we do not have, Boeing's leadership should be in jail now for intentional murder against hundreds of civilians in two 737MAX accidents, it only happened due to Boeing short cuts and bribery to FAA, this is intentional murder.
On top of that 737MAX was just one of many failed projects with short cuts, and the world is now only realizing the big issue it has on its hands, with possibly thousands of planes risking millions of people's lives every day.
Still, I do not think nothing will happen to Boeing, may a huge financial loss for few years, but nothing will change, it runs deep in Corporate America and it is linked to US MIC famous corruption.
Americans are taking too long to take their lives back on track, maybe too much fluorine in the water is removing the will to fight back these freaks in power.Yes @ 21 Private EquityKiza , Oct 12 2019 22:09 utc | 23
This is key. I spent a long time studying private equity. Maybe in the open forum tomorrow I can look over my research and make a contribution.Thanks VietnamVet and fx.Masher1 , Oct 12 2019 22:33 utc | 24I would comment... But... Why Bother.Lochearn , Oct 12 2019 22:42 utc | 25
Later b.@ 27jared , Oct 12 2019 22:44 utc | 26
So why bother when you are lucky enough to be in this excellent website?As pointed out - joe | Oct 12 2019 20:07 utc | 8vk , Oct 12 2019 23:17 utc | 27
Not only Boing but also the FAA has been found to be lacking (negligent and incompitent).
I would say this is an prime example of us oligarchy- a result of neoliberal policy where private industry is expected to assume role of government (regulation and oversight) but then cuts corners to save money and then is indifferent to the impact on the public because after all who is there to appeal to.
Anyway fortunately US is out of commercial aircraft business for near future. Well except arms will be twisted.All the evidence points that Marx's theory is correct: capitalism is a historically specific system with an expiring date. This "expiring date" is determined, mainly, by the system's tendency of the profit rate to fall. I've already called it here the moment the first post about this Boeing debacle begun.Robert , Oct 12 2019 23:54 utc | 28
That means the "financialisation" -- as is being preached by the keynesians and their admirers (e.g. MMTers) -- is false: capitalism can never be predominantly financial. The proletarian class has never been bigger as a proportion to the world's population . The difference is that, nowadays, it is the middle classes of the First World countries who dominate the production of opinion on the internet, so, from their point of view, the world is indeed "dematerialised" or "financialised". That's empirically false.
The capitalists seek to go financial when the profits from their industry has been depressed to the point they either can't keep up with competition or straight up loss or stagnation. They then begin to gamble on future gains in order to prop up, at least on their books, their profit rates. That's exactly the case with Boeing.
They go financial -- and not expand or modernize their manufacturing -- because profit is the exploitation over investment differential: if you invest more, you exploit more, but you spend more. Marx's law demonstrates the proportion of the rise in investment over rise of exploitation is secularly crescent, hence, sooner or later, capital resorts to absolute exploitation (i.e. freeze/lower wages, firing workers, longer daily workdays) to try to slow down its own decline. Finance doesn't need huge investments because the profit is fictitious, so it also intensifies.
Therefore, Boeing is not doing all this because it is greedy, but because they are desperate.
And it looks like they are not alone: Apple -- whose financial department is already so huge it would be the third largest hedge fund if independent -- has launched a worst version of its smartphone for an exorbitant price (luxury markets also slow down the downfall of profit rate) and is launching its own monetary system (Apple card); Facebook is launching its own cryptocurrency.
All the while, California stays in the dark because of a natural disaster that didn't happen yet .@LochearnDuncan Idaho , Oct 13 2019 0:09 utc | 29
Your celebration of the positive aspects of Southwest is well said. However, it also needs to be said: Herb Kelleher has blood on his hands. Lots of blood... here is the story...
In the 1980's, Southwest was just getting started with flights between Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston. At that time, the Texas government conducted a study to determine if high-speed rail between the three cities was a good idea. Before the final positive recommendation was released, Kelleher the killer stepped in and bought off the participants, as high-speed rail would deliver service at half of Southwest's price. This would destroy Southwest and leave Kelleher in millions of dollars of debt. After Kelleher bribed the government, the final report effectively killed the high-speed rail option. As a result, people who don't fly between these cities are forced to drive. Guess what the carnage has been on the Interstates connecting these cities...
Kelleher is personally responsible for at least half of it: thousands of human deaths, tens of thousands of human injuries, tens of thousands of animals, enormous amounts of pollution, huge property damage, enormous road maintenance costs, catastrophic inability to escape Houston floods, many hundreds-of-millions of dollars in vehicle damage - shit, I can't go on. Suffice to say, may Kelleher enjoy his frying in Hell. Good riddance, cunt.
Oh, and about that great Southwest customer service... at some point, Kelleher-the-dollar-whore must have taken a flight on Piedmont Airlines in the Carolinas before launching Southwest. He was no genius. He just saw how good an airline could be when he travelled Piedmont. After Piedmont was bought by USAirways (a catastrophe for frequent fliers), I suspect all the best Piedmont people went to Southwest - and gave Southwest such a good reputation. In those days, it was quite obvious who was former Piedmont and who was USAirways.
Kelleher is one of the most overrated executives in history. He was a drag on the economy of the entire United States, given what was possible had Texas gone with rail (and given the damages along the Interstates). Again, I hope he enjoys his sojourn in Hell.Even with huge resistance by the US, Airbus must be smiling currently.snake , Oct 13 2019 0:44 utc | 30
Boeing was taken over by the greedy capitalists, and they, as usual, put it in the trash for a few extra bucks.Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks. There's a theme here. by: bjd @ 7 <= you can get MBS. out of this. ?Piotr Berman , Oct 13 2019 1:06 utc | 31
The collapse is visible from PG&E shutting off electricity to 2 million people in California to Boris Johnson's Halloween. As far as I can tell, the desert approaches to Aramco's oil facilities are still defenseless. If the Saudis don't make peace with the Houthis, a global economic crash will result from the resumptions of missile attacks and the cutoff of oil from Saudi Arabia. But there has been no movement towards peace, re-instituting the rule of law, and jailing corporate criminals for manslaughter. Instead a Coup is underway to remove an elected President by: VietnamVet @ 12
I worked in the fibers industry during the 60s and I watched as money was taken from every place possible,
technical people were replaced by technicians. (just as is being done today with Nurse Practitioners and technical school
debt ridden 3 months of schooling grads now man the front lines of Medicine). Its a culture of don't bother me with safety or making the product work or delivery quality service, and its a policy endemic to the top brass (the elites as is probably the case at Boeing ).. No one can be Top Brass in a production environment in the USA culture today unless they fit into what I call the scum culture (the elite).. The can of worms that brought this about is wall street and its big daddy corrupt don't care about nobody but me firms. for years I have said they were intentionally collapsing the manufacturing and technical know how [Americas were so proud of] during the 50 -70s. It took 800 technical people to start that 1 mile long 316 Stainless steel yarn making plant up.. and to get it running smoothly, when I left 8 years later there were 12 professionals, 400 non-professional technicians running the joint. The process was sold to the Koreans and the fat cat stockholders live off the royalty.. But the Koreans got our technology for nothing.
I venture to say, no group of professionals trained in America could today start that process up.. it involves just about every technical expertise known to mankind. I guess Americans could hire the Koreans to come show us how to make it work?
So Boeing finally ends Chair of the Board-CEO duality by demoting Muilenburg to CEO only. This comes 17 years after the Sarbanes-Oxley act that, although it failed to mandate an independent Chair (even though that's considered obvious best practice in much of the world, including the UK), at least led many well-governed firms to give up on duality a decade or more ago. be fx @ 15.. <- no member of the culture can be blamed or punished..
Financialized criminals in action. by Taffyboy @ 22. I think i would opt for the label organized crime.
Jared at 29 points out that joe @ 8 said Not only Boeing but also the FAA has been found to be lacking (negligent and incompetent). jared @29 responds a prime example of US oligarchy <==They scream at every manufacturers meeting to deregulate .. eliminate product liability law suits . lie under oath at lawsuits layer and defendant alike hide from justice behind defense its for defense you cannot ask me those questions. nor can you or any court make me answer them.
Marx's theory is correct vk @30 <= maybe but what's happened to Americans since the USA became a hot bead of supporters of corporate criminals is not capitalism. its economic zionism.. take no prisoners, allow no one to compete, destroy everything that cannot be owned or controlled.. no one but no one is entitled to anything .. except the few. The difference between capitalism and economic zionism is free for all competition.. supervised by government and kept free of any thing approaching a monopoly.. vs the government creates the monopoly powers and gives them to the few so the few can deny all would be competition copyright, patent, and privatisation, financialization use war, sanctions and whatever to eliminate all competition.Therefore, Boeing is not doing all this because it is greedy, but because they are desperate.jared , Oct 13 2019 1:14 utc | 32
Posted by: vk | Oct 12 2019 23:17 utc | 30
I disagree. Boeing spent 40 billions on share buybacks rather than spending part of the stash on developing new flying platforms. 737 was modified for more than 50 years, and it seems that in the last decade it exceeded the limitations of the original frame and some components. I understand that the computer/processor system was incapable of handling MACS as MACS should be designed, e.g. with proper sensor redundancies and proper user interface -- that requires many input streams, integrating warning into actionable summaries etc. Then there was a major logical contradiction of the approach: when pilots could not handle the plane, automatic MACS could take over, but in MACS itself was compromised, say, by faulty sensors, then the baton would be passed back to the pilot -- so was MACS needed or not? If needed, passing the control to the pilot would just confuse the blame, if not needed, why it was introduced? This setup makes some sense on a fighter plane, if the situation is too confusing, alerted crew can eject, but on a civilian plane...
Another story was that once MACS set the tail flaps wrongly while the plane was on cruising speed or close to it, reseting would require more force than the wheels rotated by hand could deliver. This is why the plane (and cars) need hydraulic systems, but something was wrong with the control of that system.
All of that can be traced to the method of making new planes by cobbling additions to an old one. For example, a new plane could be designed to be stable, and/or to have sufficiently powerful computers, hydraulics etc.
From the estimates I have read, developing plane by cobbling additions was something like 2-3 billion and perhaps 2-3 times more if a new platform was developed, so Boeing cut development costs by about 6 billion. As a result, the stock buy back would be 15% lower and the stock prices would fly a little less high than they did. To me, it looks like poor greed.@ B -bevin , Oct 13 2019 1:31 utc | 33
[I]n the hierarchy of safety solutions, mitigation by design should be prioritized over warnings and training/procedures.
Actually the design rule is more like:
1) Identity all hazards and degree of risk associated with those
2) Revise the design to eliminate hazards presenting high risk of injury etc.
3) ... [what you said]
So ideally they would design a plane that is fairly easy to fly maybe even self correcting (by aerodynamic performance not by banks of computers).
If there are good reasons why the plane cannot be made easy to fly even self correcting then the next step would be train the pilots - simply something like this think has a tendency to want to nose up when you are heavy on the throttle, if you experience this you should monitor for approach stall conditions and consider less throttle or counter with elevator (sorry know nothing about flying other than avoid ground contact).
But they didn't want to train instead they fabricated a mousetrap that was in itself a hazrd.b's continuing story of Boeing is a morality tale. Beautifully written and very simple.Josh , Oct 13 2019 1:33 utc | 34
It is a story that shows how utopian is the belief that capitalism can be regulated.
It cannot be.
You can try: legislatures may huff and puff, reformers may reform but inevitably capitalism shakes off regulation like a retriever jumping out of a lake.
The entire system is rotten. The only regulatory mechanisms that capitalists will accept are those imposed by the marketplace-the only legislature that they respect. But as Boeing so graphically demonstrates the marketplace leads to monopoly, which brooks no regulation, except those which it imposes.
If the marketplace were working, according to the fairy tales economists tell, there would not be a Boeing left in the sky. The company would be out of business and half of Congress, the Federal Regulators, the owners of the media and every economist of the Chicago school would be in jail awaiting execution.
It is one of the bitter ironies of the story that among those killed in the Ethiopian crash was one of Ralph Nader's close relatives.
Another story worth following is the GM strike and the whole story of current UAW negotiations the immediate context of which includes the massive transfer of money from the car companies to Union officials. The entire system is corrupt.
There are only two alternatives: living with the barbarism or replacing it with socialism. All the rest is gossip.Does anybody think that these manifestations are typical of inherent systemic flaws in the corporate governmental structures coupled with behavioral abnormalities of individuals and groups of individuals involved in their operation and administration? Does anybody think that similar examples could be found in and throughout other industries that are governed and operated in the same way? Service industries? Medical? Pharmaceutical? Food production? Transportation? Automotive? Governmental? Military? Is this a tip of the iceberg sort of thing?psychohistorian , Oct 13 2019 2:01 utc | 35@ Josh who wroteflankerbandit , Oct 13 2019 2:02 utc | 36
Does anybody think that similar examples could be found in and throughout other industries that are governed and operated in the same way? Service industries? Medical? Pharmaceutical? Food production? Transportation? Automotive? Governmental? Military? Is this a tip of the iceberg sort of thing?
Yes, the financialization meme permeates all services and industries, IMO
Examples from my own life are my healing of a Traumatic Brain Injury by neurofeedback/neuromodulation techniques that operate under a totally different paradigm than the current talk/drug based mental health system
Also I am now using for pain management a photobiomodulation unit (made in America) called a Medlight 630 PRO which represents disintermediation of the existing Big Pharma drug system and so is not supported by insurance in spite of being used successfully by NASA and the military speciality fighting units.....instead we have the opioid crisis.
Advances are not allowed because they would make some folks lose their lock on the money machine temporarily if not permanently.Great reporting..!Igor Bundy , Oct 13 2019 7:08 utc | 37
I will just add here that it's incredible that Boeing tried to pass of the MCAS as the same thing as 'runaway trim'...
Now just by way of explanation for those who may be unfamiliar with basic airmanship, the 'trim' of the horizontal stabilizer [its physical angle] on any airplane is what is used to cancel out any pressure on the control stick, either forward or back...
Flying at different speeds the airplane requires differing amounts of downforce from the tailplane...the purpose of which downforce is to balance the lift created by the wing, which tends to want to pitch the airplane nose down...therefore a downforce on the tail is require to teeter the nose back up and keep the airplane in balance...
In an airplane capable of flying at speeds from about 100 mph to 500 mph, this is not an easy problem and requires a quite elaborate mechanical or electronic control system, or some kind of hybrid...the point being to adjust the tailplane [aka horizontal stabilizer] for a neutral feel in the control stick at any speed in the flight envelope...that's called the trimmed condition.
In any case, problems with the trim can happen which will cause the tailplane to 'run away' from its desired neutral position...this could be due to an electrical fault in the system, since the tailplane trim [the angle at which it is set] is driven by an electric motor...
Or, importantly, it can be caused by aerodynamic forces, in which case it's an aerodynamic runaway...[the trim system has dual friction brakes, but those can fail]
Now here is why pilots are so gobsmacked by Boeing's chicanery...before MCAS there were two contact-type switches in the bottom of the control stick...when pulling back on the stick, that switch would open and cut electrical power to the trim...
So if it was an electrical runaway simply holding the stick stationary [as per the checklist] would bring that contact switch into play as the trim noses the airplane down...
With MCAS that switch at the base of the stick was disabled...
Now the pilot thinks it's an aerodynamic runaway...at which point you don't want to pull back on the stick because it will only aggravate the situation...the force caused by the elevator 'flap' moving up [stick back] causes the nose of the tailplane to go up even more [it acts as a trim tab]... forcing the airplane into a steeper dive...
Now here is the key...if you have an aerodynamic runaway, you want to use the TRIM SWITCHES on the stick to trim opposite to the runaway...
If you cut the power, you may not be able to stop the aerodynamic runaway with your bare hands on those trim wheels...and if the plane gets all the way nose down, you're never going to budge those wheels...
The Ethiopian flight data recorder shows the pilots had exactly this situation...in desperation they turned the electrical cutout switches back on to trim with the stick switches... BUT, that only turned the MCAS back on again and nosed the plane down even more...
So it is incredible that Boeing was allowed by the FAA to at first even hide the existence of MCAS...and then later, after the first crash, to say just handle it like any runaway trim...
That's at the heart of the southwest pilots lawsuit...this is complete bullshit...
Another aspect of this is why isn't Trump firing the Transportation Secretary...and why hasn't the secretary fired his FAA chief...?
My prediction...nothing will be fixed properly...because it can't... THERE IS NO FIX
The MAX is a flying coffin due to the instability caused by those big new engines, which needs some kind of bandaid fix...and as crazy as it may sound, I expect Boeing will push through and get that deathtrap into the air again...
Folks, take your chances with this airplane at your own risk...
PS...and now we have the structural problems which is due to metal fatigue...this happened because the 737 is now twice its original weight and it is again practically impossible to just continue patching things up...and this applies to the NG as well...Anyone venture to guess how many hundreds of millions the CEO would get when hes fired? He should be in jail but in the US, people such as this gets a huge severance package just like the military getting medals for bombing weddings.BM , Oct 13 2019 7:41 utc | 38@BBM , Oct 13 2019 8:35 utc | 39
You have updated the article it seems, it would be good to put a small annotation to that effect.
Posted by: Igor Bundy | Oct 13 2019 7:08 utc | 40
Muilenburg is - just in my humble opinion - legally acting in gross neglect, and it should be possible to fire him on that basis with no severance pay. However I agree with you that it probably won't happen that way. In the event that Boeing gives him a large severance payout, it would be interesting if some small-time shareholder could initiate a class-action lawsuit against the Board (or against Boeing, or whatever) for damages resulting from the misuse of finances against the interests of shareholders.From the very first article in March I clearly stated my position that: (a) the 737MAX would never fly again, and (b) Boeing was finished, it would go bankrupt, it could not be saved.Rhisiart Gwilym , Oct 13 2019 8:54 utc | 40
Why was I so sure of this, when many others were saying otherwise? Because it was clear from the outset - from the article and from the comments including several from personal experience - that there very serious and fatal flaws including gross criminality in the entire top-level management of the corporation, combined with linked fatal problems and gross corruption and criminality in the FAA.
When you have that sort of situation, criminal negligence, criminal coverup, and criminal prioritisation of profits over the most basic safety never occurs in single incidents! When one such incident comes out, you can always be sure that there were plenty more where that came from. Especially so, when the top management acts with such gross dishonesty and opacity as was the case with Boeing from the outset of this incident.
Furthermore, it is a huge corporation with huge numbers of employees and former employees. When a company systematically treats its workforce badly, that is a lot of potential people with grudges who have damaging inside information - therefore it is certain there will be whistleblowers - both from hurt people bearing grudges against this or that, and from purely morally-acting people who want to do what they feel is their duty. Stuff comes out. A small trickle slowly grows. Some is not very important, but some is clear evidence of legal culpability in serious issues.
Thus, with every single development we have seen Boeing edge ever closer - slowly, step by step, but compellingly and inevitably - ever closer and closer to the endgame I declared above: (a) the 737MAX would never fly again, and (b) Boeing was finished, it would go bankrupt, it could not be saved.
Even though Boeing at this point is still relatively far from it's final desting, it cannot avoid that destiny. The problems are not limited to the passenger aircraft side but also the MIC side.
The cockups and criminality in sum total are so colossal, that salvation of Boeing through massive government intervention would be both political and economic suicide for the United States - apart from the colossal costs involved and the colossal legal liabilities, when coupled with the public image of such gross abuse of public safety, the impenetrable and unsurmountable technical problems of the 737MAX ghost, and the emerging range of problems of other aircraft in the 7x7 series, would make it impossible to retain the 7x7 series (and especially the 737 series) in the product line. Developing completely new aircraft would take too long, and in the intervening period the market position would be lost irretrievably to stronger competitors. (It is also questionable whether there are enough sufficiently competent engineers in the USA today).
If the US government were to force the bailout of Boeing and force the dangerous and improperly certified aircraft back in the air - even domestically (internationally would be impossible anyway), the gross criminality of that action in plain sight and the extreme disregard for public safety also in plain sight would so disrepute the US government that the complete collapse of the USA would be vastly accelerated.
After all, the flow of evidence of criminal culpability and the ever widening of the scandal will certainly not stop, and international regulators will certainly not allow these death traps to fly. Even US arms-twisting and blackmail of foreign especially EU regulators will not work, because too many liabilities are networked across different industries - insurance, pilots unions, passenger interest groups, airlines, manufacturers unions, victim litigation, etc - it will be impossible to reconcile, it will explode.
The USA/FAA/Boeing cannot escape from this vortex. It is like a black hole.bevin 33:Jen , Oct 13 2019 9:52 utc | 41
"There are only two alternatives: living with the barbarism or replacing it with socialism. All the rest is gossip."
This at least is one perfectly-cut gem of pure truth, in this whole discussion. Yet there are still millions of propaganda-bamboozled semi-literates in the Anglozionist empire who hear 'socialism' as a snarl-noise, devoid of any other meaning. Cheers bevin!Josh @ 34:Yeah, Right , Oct 13 2019 10:25 utc | 42
Odd as your suggestion might sound to many barflies, it is actually spot on.
Across most industries, in many corporations you can find similar mindsets in the most senior managerial hierarchies. Let's face it, everyone uses the same accounting principles and methods, the same financial models, and these are all permeated by an outlook that considers short-term profit, measured in time periods of three months, to be more important than the medium-term or the long-term periods (themselves often measured in periods of eighteen months and three years respectively).
Indeed, there was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when everyone who was anyone in the corporate world had to get a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree. The knowledge and outlook you acquired in doing such a degree (the best universities to get such a degree were supposed to be Stanford University in California, Harvard or Massachusetts Institute of Technology) was supposed to be "transferable" across a range of industries, meaning that you could work in a company in one industry at the top or near-top level (where you are making major decisions determining the company's direction and shaping its culture) and then work in another company in another industry at the top level or near-top level, doing much the same.
So it's very likely what you suggest is at once a combination of systemic flaws in management hierarchies and the measuring tools used to determine whether a firm is doing well or not, in money terms, and a general cultural trend in which people were encouraged not to work from the bottom of the firm up to the top but rather to flit from one firm and one industry to another, spreading either their successes or, more likely, their blunders..."The cracks were discovered on high time aircraft which were torn down for conversion to freighters. The affected 737 types are NG only; the MAX and Classic have a different wing attachment design."...snake , Oct 13 2019 10:45 utc | 43
Just out of morbid curiosity, does that mean that Boeing went with a new wing design for the NG only to revert back to the "old" design for the MAX?
Or does it mean that all three have different wing attachment designs: a "classic" wingbox, a "pickle fork" design for the NG, and Something Newer Again for the MAX?
The implications for Boeing if it is the former might be rather profound, if not downright sinister.Does anybody think that these manifestations are typical of inherent systemic flaws in the corporate governmental structures coupled with behavioral abnormalities of individuals and groups of individuals involved in their operation and administration? Does anybody think that similar examples could be found in and throughout other industries that are governed and operated in the same way? Service industries? Medical? Pharmaceutical? Food production? Transportation? Automotive? Governmental? Military? Is this a tip of the iceberg sort of thing? by: Josh @ 34uncle tungsten , Oct 13 2019 11:18 utc | 44
< ==I am nobody but my answer is yes, see snake at 30 .. also..
There is a giant difference in the corporate culture of the 50s and 60s vs today.. and its not just in America its in every intelligence interconnected, MSM news coordinated, armed human container ( nation state ) in the modern world. Its endemic and systemic.. which means it has both been planned and is somewhere centrally coordinated.. I suspect the intelligence services.. interconnect with the book publishers and the university:government:corporate interconnect system.. Some clues have already come out of the sex scandal investigations. The importance of those sex investigations is that they seem to be leading to the connection points which allow to link the scoundrels with the money that produces, uses and engineers into our societies amoral philosophies and controlled behavioral-isms.
This lowest level of morality coupled to the highest level of corruption environment<= produces often non functional product engineering and delivers unacceptable levels of service seems to have been (is) designed into our societies by someone and that someone needs to be identified if ever we humans are going to find peace among the nations of the world. There is so much that can be done to improve the human lot, if ever humanity could yank itself free of the nation state system. The minds of the educated working together interactively on the same problems all at once is something to strive for, but today the few educated minds are rthe private property of the corporate world. Denying people education and killing them in wars seem to be one way they deny competition. Today's technology created by educated minds are or have been encapsulated into the criminal, corrupt corporate we own it all culture..and the corporations are using it to deny competition.
Its the driving support for that culture which needs to be identified and dealt with.I studied books like "in search of excellence" and "design for the real world". Lucky to attend a three day workshop with Victor Papaneck and researched aspects of manufacturing and IT innovation. The precipitous fall of manufacturing in the USA is simply apalling. If it isn't lead in the water then it must be Chicago School economic criminals. I was astounded at manufacturing in Finland and they appear to have sustained their impetus for constant improvement.Biswapriya Purkayast , Oct 13 2019 11:28 utc | 45
As for Boeing and it's directors and shareholders, they should be surcharged for human and corporate neglect. Indeed all elected officials should be subject to surcharge in to pay for their failures that lead to personal or financial injury whether in a socialist or capitalist system. They must have real skin in the game.Oh, poor Boeing! How will this military industrial complex component and imperialist capitalist tool ever survive?!? Surely the Amerikastani government will never stoop do low as to order the whistleblowers and naysayers silenced, and will not armtwist vassal governments to compel their airlines to begin flying and buying its planes, no matter how unsafe, right?flankerbandit , Oct 13 2019 11:37 utc | 46
Right?@ BMComp , Oct 13 2019 12:05 utc | 47...the 737MAX would never fly again...
You make some very good points, but I don't see it happening.
I had thought initially that this would have to be the end of the MAX...two crashes in quick succession caused by a gross airplane design defect would, in another era, spell exactly that...the end [as with the de Havilland Comet in the '50s].
The first sign that the MAX would be taken out of service would have been the firing of the FAA chief...this has not happened, despite the incredible corruption of this vital regulatory agency.
This tells me that Boeing will be allowed to get this thing back in the air. It's a political life and death situation that goes way beyond Boeing...this company is the flag-bearer of the mighty US Empire...it will not be permitted to go down...
To be fair, there is no need for Boeing to disappear [and that's not realistic anyway].
For instance the triple seven is a GREAT AIRPLANE...the queen of the skies, with an amazing safety record. Out of more than 1,600 flying for nearly 25 years there have only been seven hull losses...and two of those were ground incidents while the plane was not flying...
Two were the mysterious MH370 crash, and the infamous MH17 shootdown by almost certainly Ukrainian Nazis...[but blamed on Donbass 'rebels' and Russia by a corrupt western power establishment].
The only case where passengers died in an in-flight mishap of the conventional kind was during an Asiana landing in San Fran in 2013 where the crew undershot the runway [pilot error no question].
Only three passengers died because they weren't wearing their seat belts as they were instructed to do before any landing, and were thrown clear of the aircraft...everyone else was evacuated...
Those were the first fatalities in the triple seven, after 18 years in service...you can't ask for much more than that.
But let's look for a moment at MH17...this complete fake 'investigation' should give us all a clue about the ruling elite's disregard for ordinary folks and the flying public...they're not interested in the truth or in any kind of moral principles...
The goal has been a political campaign against Russia, using a civil aviation tragedy as a weapon...this is the level of cynicism we have in the west today.
I will also not that the triple seven was designed more than a quarter century ago, starting in fact while the Soviet Union was still around...which served to keep a check on the worst instincts of the capitalist class...and before the west descended into its moral morass.
Now we have the JATR [Joint Authorities Technical Review] which is an ad-hoc body without any legal authority anywhere...it is comprised of aviation experts and their report is calling for 'better' regulatory oversight...
The preliminary NTSB report is milquetoast...and the NTSB has a long record of blaming pilots and shielding manufacturers...this state of affairs didn't just happen overnight...it's been a long time in the making.
So this squawking from this JATR amounts to verbiage and nothing more...like I said, nothing is going to change because there is too much at stake for the entire imperialist system...
In the bigger context, the passenger jet business has been deeply politicized for decades...airline travel is a key global industry and the US [and Europe too] are now doing everything possible to put a stick in the spokes of a resurgent Russian civil aircraft industry because they don't want the competition.
Which competition incidentally is exactly what the flying public needs in order to keep the aviation oligarchs honest.It is not clear yet what causes the cracks in the forged aluminum part. Many older NG were retrofitted with winglets on the tips of their wingsJW , Oct 13 2019 12:14 utc | 48
my take: Cyclical loads need to surpass a certain threshold before they cause crack propagation. Typically dynamic loads caused by slightly altered aerodynamics (such as winglets) are not so significant, and the energy is dissipated along the wingspan. I think its more a strutural issue emanating from take off or landing loads, which are large impact forces on the structure. The crack is in the transition from the rigid forged pickle to the more elastic strap. Such transitions from stiff to elastic members cause local stress peaks, and become problematic when the material is unable to redistribute local excess stresses through plastification.I wonder just how much % of US GDP is comprised of parasitic financial engineering. Going by healthcare costs versus other countries: At least half.Red Corvair , Oct 13 2019 12:27 utc | 49You know what really is a pain in the ass for Boeing? It's the civilian airliner branch. Boeing should get rid of it. Simply not profitable enough. Consider Boeing's war department, which is doing SO good! In fact, US companies should restrict themselves to war activities, there's far more profit to be made and they're doing it SO good. Plus there is much less (no?) red-tape in those "national security" activities. The real matter is: as far as war is NOT concerned, US civilian companies should close shop. Or at the very least work with one or the other of the 17 US intelligence agencies. US civilians should emigrate to countries where civilian product know-how is still valued. The US would then be free to be a full-fledged military state.William Gruff , Oct 13 2019 12:28 utc | 50
My modest contribution...
What!? You tell me US war products are much overrated as well?!
Then I don't know what they got to do... A regime change in the US maybe?..."Therefore, Boeing is not doing all this because it is greedy, but because they are desperate."Goldhoarder , Oct 13 2019 13:06 utc | 51
The rest of the post by vk @27 explains it concisely, but this is the key point.
Is it key because it absolves the capitalist elites of the moral defect of greed? No, this point is crucial because it demonstrates that the problem with late stage capitalism is not one of moral decline but rather is endemic; systemic. The problem is a structural component of capitalism.
Is Dennis Muilenburg stupid or evil? Of course not. Well, maybe he is sorta evil, but that is not the problem with Boeing. It's not like Muilenburg would be a serial murderer lurking in dark places waiting for victims to pass by if he were just a Walmart door greeter by trade rather than Boeing's CEO. He's just trying to do his job, which is to quarter-by-quarter improve Boeing's profitability. Sadly for all whose livelihoods depend upon capitalism that is getting harder, if not downright impossible, to do at this stage of the game. Costs/corners must be cut and income streams refined and streamlined. The Market (hallowed be Its name) will not be satisfied with piddling 1% to 2% returns, but the aircraft marketplace is saturated, and is poised to get even more saturated as UAC and COMAC start trying to muscle in with their MC-21 and C919. Sure, Boeing should be designing new planes, but that takes many years of investment before showing any returns and The Market (hallowed be Its name) demand satisfaction now . There can be no delaying of gratification for The Market (hallowed be Its name).
It is The Market (hallowed be Its name) that has a need for greed. Business leaders just try to satisfy it. This is important because focusing upon the greediness of any individuals cannot solve the problems exemplified by Boeing. Trying to tame the greediness built right into the most sacred component of the capitalist economy, on the other hand, leaves you with something that is not capitalism. You cannot make The Market (hallowed be Its name) function without greed, and your best attempts to reorganize The Market (hallowed be Its name) to operate around humanistic imperatives will result in something that looks a lot like socialism.@30 Snake no group of professionals trained in America could today start that process up. many of us are still around. I recently came back to the US in 2014. Spent years working in China. The technology transfer was amazing. Chinese are good people to work with too. I asked an older(than me... i'm old now) engineer if he thought this was a good idea. He told me to read Antony Sutton. So I did. It is amazing. It seems like they wanted to destroy the US on purpose. In China the government pays large manufacturing industry costs for utilities infrastructure and hook up. Free... all on the government. No taxes for 7 years. Half taxes for 7 years. They want it. The people want it. In the US it is "lean manufacturing". The old plants are maintained on a shoe string budget. Capital spending is sparse. The top positions are dominated by finance people where in China it is mostly engineers. The difference is obvious. I think the plan was to have China build everything with the US finance scum skimming a large share of the profits. The Chinese had other plans/ambitions and now the conflict. I think the US is much weaker than during the cold war. I think the US loses the battle this time around. The USA will be the one to collapse. It is much deserved. Hopefully the sociopaths and psycopaths who run the country don't throw a tantrum and blow us all up.Nathan Mulcahy , Oct 13 2019 14:24 utc | 52I wonder what role Boeing's past chairman Jim McNerney has played in destroying a once great company like Boeing. He comes from GE, another once great US company that has been ruined by a type of management that has deemphasized a company's fundamental technical strength in favor of marketing, and short term money making. The scary question is, to how many other great, technically oriented US companies has GE "exported" its brand of management? It is especially scary because the effect will become visible provably a decade or so after the damage starts.lysias , Oct 13 2019 14:27 utc | 53
For some 30 years after WW2, capitalism was successfully regulated, and people in the West led decent lives. Capitalists allowed this because of the Communist threat.vk , Oct 13 2019 14:28 utc | 54
Today, there is once again a threat, a Chinese threat, a threat of contagion from a system whose success is increasingly apparent. Don't capitalists now have the same reasons their ancestors had to allow a regulation of capitalism?@ Posted by: Goldhoarder | Oct 13 2019 13:06 utc | 51diDre , Oct 13 2019 14:30 utc | 55
That is not a theory, that's exactly what happened and designed.
Mao correctly diagnosed that, in late stage of capitalism, it was the role of socialism to do the basic historic role of early stage capitalism in the Third World. Marx stated that a system doesn't fall before all of its possibilities are depleted. It is only when capitalism is completely developed that socialism can be built. This is public knowledge, Mao didn't hide his theory from anybody (on the contrary, he publicized it in China the most he could). That was also the general consensus of the CCP and still is today.
After the fall of Bretton Woods (1971), Nixon created the petrodollar and, after the Sino-Soviet schism (1969), he drew a hedge in the socialist world by dealing a preferred nation deal with China in 1972. That helped China break the capitalist siege at the height of the Cold War and use capitalist resources to industrialize itself. At the time, the Americans thought China's high growth rates were only due to its immense population; the USA was also prospering, so they didn't bother to continue to outsource its manufacturing to the Chinese. The end of the 70s was also the beginning of an era were it was widely believed in the First World that the future of the working classes would be one of "smart jobs", i.e. highly paid, low intensity, low stress, with excellent workplace conditions; they would walk in green, polution-free cities, while the Third World would to the dirty, but necessary, jobs like manufacturing and agriculture.
That's the difference beteween China and India. China had a socialist revolution, and had a long-term plan of development of the nation while India didn't. India fell for the siren song of liberalism and let the capitalists loose to exploit their people, land and infrastructure at will. End result is that, today, India's GDP is only USD 2.8 trillion; while China's is USD 14 trillion; India today must be compared to Brazil (GDP: USD 1.8 trillion) instead of China. In 1975, Brazil and China had roughly the same GDP (with Brazil, obviously, having a much higher GDP per capita); they followed polar opposite strategies of development: nowadays, the Chinese GDP is almost 10x bigger and its average wage per hour is double. That means the Brazilians cannot even play the sweatshop card anymore.flakerbandit @36 Flying at different speeds the airplane requires differing amounts of downforce from the tailplane...the purpose of which downforce is to balance the lift created by the wing, which tends to want to pitch the airplane nose down...therefore a downforce on the tail is require to teeter the nose back up and keep the airplane in balance...fx , Oct 13 2019 14:40 utc | 56
I may be wrong but this sounds backwards to me. The nose is always pitched slightly upwards in order to generate sufficient lift to counteract gravitation. The higher the speed, the less pitch required. In fact a min. pitch is even integrated into the design. This constant pitch constitutes the form drag. It also leads to the nose wanting to perpetually move upwards, eventually leading to stall. This must be aerodynamically countered using the joystick by moving the wing flaps down, or causing the tail force upwards, also by moving the tail flaps down. The trim obviates this perpetual counteraction with the joystick by resetting the tail flaps in a constant position to offset the downward force, freeing the joystick. It needs to be readjusted for changed speeds"how many other great, technically oriented US companies has GE "exported" its brand of management? It is especially scary because the effect will become visible provably a decade or so after the damage starts.jared , Oct 13 2019 16:15 utc | 57
@ Nathan Mulcahy | Oct 13 2019 14:24 utc | 52
Before Boeing, McNerney raped and pillaged 3M. Thankfully, 3M is a broader-based company and the sane people of Minneapolis (not the coasts crowd) righted the ship.
The good news is that with GE trading below 1/6 of its high - which came in 2000! - and "Neutron Jack" Welsh's former deputies as dis-reputed as he has become, GE won't be such an incubator of slash-and-burners that spread like wees through industrial America.
The bad news is that they have been replaced by private equity scroundels like Dave Calhoun, who use the board to do their raping and pillaging.@ Goldhoarder | Oct 13 2019 13:06 utc | 51flankerbandit , Oct 13 2019 17:10 utc | 58
Excellent point and summary. But it's not that U.S. government are trying to destroy country it is rather that they were effectively influenced to look the other way.
Some people are becoming very wealth at the expense of the nation - zombie nation.
I am in manufacturing plants around the country on regular basis - US is non competitive in infrastructure and talent. And I will refrain from discussing experiences on military projects - working for vendor (not classified stuff).
Only US has going for it is lots of room for improvement.@ diDre...Willy2 , Oct 13 2019 17:31 utc | 59
Oh brother...sorry to sound dismissive but you are possibly confusing readers here...everything you said is total nonsense.
I say that as an aeronautical engineer and professional pilot who has spent most of my career in flight testing of military and commercial aircraft...
The wing has a NEGATIVE pitching moment which increases with lift...that means that as more lift is produced the more the airplane wants to nose down.
This translates as increasing force on the stick [aka 'yoke'] as the pilot pulls back to nose the airplane up.
He is fighting against the increasing pitching moment...if he lets go of the stick the airplane will nose back down and settle into its trimmed condition.
Pulling the nose up like this is how you slow the aircraft down...the extra lift produces more lift-induced drag...and also more parasitic drag, by exposing a greater section area of the wing and fuselage to the airstream...think of holding your hand outside the window of your car on the highway...if you hold it flat [palm down] there is much less air resistance than if you hold your palm perpendicular to your direction of travel.
If you want the aircraft to fly slow, you then set the pitch attitude to such a more nose-up configuration...and then you use trim to trim out the control pressure...ie the pressure it takes to hold the stick back and keep the nose up like that...
That's what trim is for, like I said earlier, so you can take your hands off the stick at any flying speed you have set...and that's also why a different trim angle is needed at different speeds.
In straight and level unaccelerated flight, the forces and moments acting on the flight vehicle must be in equilibruim...that means that lift must equal weight and thrust must equal drag.
The moments must also be in equilibrium. That means the nose-down moment that is created by the wing lift must be balanced by a downforce on the tail, which like I said teeters the nose up about the center of gravity...
Think of a fulcrum point like a teeter totter...the CG is the fulcrum point...and one side of the totter is very short but has a big person sitting on it...while the other is very long and has a small person sitting on it...they are both in equilibrium and the totter is exactly horizontal.
The tail is much smaller but is a long distance from the CG...which gives it a long lever arm...the wing lift [technically called the neutral point, which is the spot where all lift forces act, just as CG is the spot where the total weight acts] is generally about half way back along the wing chord...and is a very short way ahead of the CG...
So just like the tetter totter, we have a very big wing lift and nose down pitching moment...balanced by a quite small tail force on a long lever arm.
For longitudinal stability the neutral point is placed ahead of the CG by a small amount...this is called the stability margin. [In fighter aircraft that have fly by wire, the NP is actually behind the CG, making for an unstable but very responsive aircraft...the computer provides the stability by constant corrections, unnoticed by the pilot]
It's disappointing to see that when I try to elucidate a technical point that some people who obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject will want to speak up without even taking the time to try to learn some basics.- Now I understand why the Trump administration wants to impose import tariffs on airbus planes. Trump (/Boeing) wants to protect Boeing(/itself).flankerbandit , Oct 13 2019 17:45 utc | 60Have to correct myself there on the relationship between the neutral point and the CG...the CG must be AHEAD of the neutral point, for positive static stability...not the other way around...JW , Oct 13 2019 18:07 utc | 61What homegrown talent can there be in US manufacturing, when the average American couldn't be bothered to grasp basic STEM skills, while the intellectuals who do would rather join finance, healthcare and law etc where there's a lot more money to be made for them in these sectors with massive rent seeking activity?AshenLight , Oct 13 2019 18:10 utc | 62@ Posted by: flankerbandit | Oct 13 2019 17:10 utc | 58flankerbandit , Oct 13 2019 18:20 utc | 63
> It's disappointing to see that when I try to elucidate a technical point
> that some people who obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject
> will want to speak up without even taking the time to try to learn some
As a scientist, get used to it... it never ends. Even in the anti-intellectual USA where people have little interest in science, everyone thinks they're the expert.@ AshenLight...How true...Jeff , Oct 13 2019 18:50 utc | 64
I spent a good deal of time working overseas and saw much less of this kind of silliness among laypeople.You are wrong about one thing. There is probably good reason for the engineer's frustration. It sounds like the Europeans are pulling a stock government stunt - vague demanding more testing. The Boeing engineers aren't asking the EASA to solve their problems. They think they have solved their problems. The role of the government in this case to say yes, they are solved or no, they are not [AND HERE's why].Tom , Oct 13 2019 19:12 utc | 65
At issue here will be the definition of when you've demonstrated compliance with the regulation. Sometimes it's easy - MIL-H-5440 has a requirement that all hydraulic lines less than a 1/2" from fixed structure shall be secured with stand offs (this is in there to prevent another aircraft accident like the one that killed Knute Rockne). Verifying that requirement is easy. Look at the drawings/inspect the aircraft. If, on the other hand, the requirement is that the pilot shall always be able to trim the aircraft to neutral flight throughout all portions of the aircraft's normal flight envelope without excessive force, how do you test for that requirement? I know how it's done - by picking some number of points in the envelope where the loading is expected to be the worst. You can't test every point. And it's always possible for an overseer to say, well, I think you need to look at more points. (Which ones?)"It is not clear yet what causes the cracks in the forged aluminum part. Many older NG were retrofitted with winglets on the tips of their wings. These may have led to unforeseen loads or vibrations. It is possible that some of the younger 737 NG airplanes have a similar problem."flankerbandit , Oct 13 2019 19:21 utc | 66
Have older 737 series been retrofitted with winglets? I have seen pictures of the 500 series with winglets.@ jeff 64Vonu , Oct 13 2019 21:06 utc | 67
Oh my...another wannabe 'expert'...
Do you have ANY experience or credentials in the field of aircraft flight testing and certification..?
Do you know what CFR14 Part 25 means..?
Those are the US regulations for transport category aircraft...they are comprehensive, running to hundreds of pages of rules.
Boeing was able to convince the FAA to waive a lot of these rules... as seen in this document.
These have to do with crew alerts that are REQUIRED and on the books, but Boeing got a free pass.
It's clear to me you have no idea what you are talking about...the European regulators have asked specific questions about how this MCAS is supposed to be fixed.
Boeing has not given any answers.
As someone who has many hours as a flight test engineer and test pilot working on aircraft certification I know how the process works...your comments about trimming and testing for trimming are ridiculous.
As I have already explained here, this has nothing to do with conventional trim... it has to do with the fact that MCAS uses the trim system to patch over an AERODYNAMIC INSTABILITY at high angles of attack.
I have already explained this before. One requirement for handling qualities that test pilots test for is a linear increase of stick force needed to nose the plane up.
With the MAX, that does not happen at high alpha because the engine nacelles mounted far forward start making lift at high alpha, thus lessening the control stick force required by the pilot.
This is a VERY BIG PROBLEM...
Thus MCAS was slapped on to nose the plane down in order to provide the missing stick force...it's like trimming nose down, which will increase the force the pilot needs to apply to hold stick back.
In flight test, it was found that the original MCAS authority was NOT ENOUGH to fix this handling quality issue...thus the authority was increased four-fold and also made to repeat every few seconds.
This tells me as a professional that the rating the MAX got from the test pilots was quite low on the Cooper-Harper scale for handling qualities.
Now the fix is supposed to be to decrease the MCAS authority to something presumably resembling the original 'lite' version...
Which brings us right back to the problem of the airplane not meeting the handling qualities criteria...
IT CAN'T BE FIXED LIKE THAT
The Europeans know it and every professional test pilot and engineer knows it.
That's why Boeing is playing these games.
Your input is ridiculous on every level.After Boeing commits suicide through incompetence and negligence, we can get to work on Lockheed. With a bit of patience, the entire American military industrial congressional complex may fail, enhancing the world's security.Peter AU 1 , Oct 13 2019 23:38 utc | 68flankerbanditKiza , Oct 13 2019 23:58 utc | 69
Thanks for putting in your comments here. My own experience compared to working up and testing a large commercial aircraft is very small time. I have watched media and commentators always quick to blame the pilots when there is a crash. I ended up designing, building, test flying, and then clocking up a lot of hours in my own ultralight whirlybird, so if anything went wrong, there was only myself to blame. Commercial pilot I feel is a different game not only to what I did but also the test pilots that are involved in the building and testing of aircraft.
For pilots that did not know mcas existed or the full extent of how it functioned, the boeing max was a death trap. But other aircraft crashes in the past, aways the media kicks off with pilot error or pilot suicide ect when in nearly all cases it turns out there was some type of aircraft malfunction.
I always flew with the wind in my face and visual reference. For a pilot flying on instruments, whos job and experience is to fly from point A to point B in straight and level flight, always well within the aircrafts limitations, quickly making the correct decision when something goes wrong and the instruments are not functioning correctly would be a difficult thing.@flankerbandit 66flankerbandit , Oct 14 2019 0:58 utc | 70
"In flight test, it was found that the original MCAS authority was NOT ENOUGH to fix this handling quality issue...thus the authority was increased four-fold and also made to repeat every few seconds.
Now the fix is supposed to be to decrease the MCAS authority to something presumably resembling the original 'lite' version."
I was one of the people who suggested originally that what is happening now is what must happen, but only as an absolute minimum. This is because if I have to take chances, I would rather take chances that my pilot wants to preserve his own life then trust someone who is not on the plane and who decided to take control away from the pilot through jumbled code and faulty sensors (and then hidden this from the pilot).
This rot in Boeing comes from an interplay between the greedy management, now incompetent engineers and deeply corrupt regulators and the US Government superstructure (no-one getting even fired for causing hundreds of deaths).
The real, proper, reliable solution, of course, is to redesign the plane completely to ensure full dynamic stability with specific motors. This means that 737MAX should never fly again in any normal society. Whichever government (through its regulator) allows this plane to fly again is clearly and deliberately breaching the social contract with its citizens.@ Peter AU1flankerbandit , Oct 14 2019 1:07 utc | 71
Thanks for your input Peter...it sounds like you designed and built a gyroplane or perhaps a light helo...well done!
I have a few friends that have built their own aircraft projects over the years, mostly from kits.
I've been fiddling with a design of my own that I would like to eventually build, and now that I am semi-retired [LOL] I may just actually get around to it.
The cost of a store-bought small airplane is out of reach for most regular folks...and what you get for your money is a terrible value proposition...that's why so many people are building their own...I think in the US more homebuilts are registered [by far] than newly built light aircraft.
I agree with you about the 'blame the pilot' game...I have become quite cynical about the NTSB over the years because I see them protecting the manufacturers. This is a shame because it used to be a great organization that didn't pull punches. Hopefully they will get back on track.
From the NTSB report...Although the NTSB's work in this area is ongoing, based on preliminary information, we are concerned that the accident pilot responses to the unintended MCAS operation were not consistent with the underlying assumptions about pilot recognition and response that Boeing used, based on FAA guidance, for flight control system functional hazard assessments, including for MCAS, as part of the 737 MAX design.
That's a good start, but it's not the major problem, in my view.
The big problem here is that the Ethiopian crash happened after the existence of MCAS was revealed, and the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive about how to deal with it, which was to make sure to use those trim-cutout switches...as stated in the checklist for ordinary runaway trim.
Well that turned out to be insane...because the Ethiopian crew did just that, and crashed anyway. It was simply impossible to recover that airplane at that low a height when the MCAS nosed it over. It was a death sentence.
I and others had stated that in these situations that the checklist is not adequate at all. A proper emergency procedure needs to be put in place that is going to actually give pilots a chance at low altitudes.
This would also entail a switch to shut off MCAS, while leaving the electric trim on. This is the only way you are going to have a chance save an airplane that has a malfunctioning MCAS down low.
If you have enough height there is what used to be called a yo-yo maneuver, or what Boeing calls a 'roller-coaster'...where you first need to unload the tailplane by pointing the plane even more nose down, so that you can free up the trim wheels and manually trim back.
Only problem is that this takes several thousand feet of altitude. This was proved in the sim after the flight data from Ethiopian was retrieved...
Some more info on this site...
I really don't see how they are going to solve this problem if it occurs at low height where you just don't have room to do these kinds of maneuvers...and there is no procedure to quickly identify a malfunctioning MCAS and shut it off.
There actually exists a so-called 'trim override' switch on the back of the center console...this allows you to override the cutout switches in the base of the control stick that I mentioned previously.
The use of this allows the pilot to use both the elevator by pulling the stick back and the electric trim at the same time.
But I see nothing happening in terms of a new emergency procedure. Even that would entail enough changes to cost both Boeing and the airlines money.
And that's what it's all about, money. The airlines are just as bad in this regard. After all Boeing sold them the MAX on the basis of not having to spend any money on retraining existing 737 pilots.
The whole thing makes me sick.Incidentally, here's a very good article from Dominic Gates in the Seattle Times with some very good illustrations that show what is going on.Peter AU 1 , Oct 14 2019 1:50 utc | 72
Why Boeing's emergency directions may have failed to save 737 MAX
Like I said those existing procedures are worth diddly and were a death sentence to the Ethiopian flight.
At Kiza...everybody agrees that the MAX should never fly again, but I just don't see it. Like anybody in our ruling elite gives a flying hoot about 'social contracts'...flankerbanditPeter AU 1 , Oct 14 2019 1:59 utc | 73
Gyro. I preferred the rotary wing for what I was doing which was mustering cattle sheep and goats.Rotary wing is much better in turbulence, plus it can come down in vertical decent whereas a fixed wing stalls. I originally bought a homebuilt machine which I began modifying after about 200 hours.
At 3000 hrs I built a new airframe to my design and incorporated my previous mods. did 2000 hours with that setup until health issues prevented me from flying. Most of those hours were just above tree tops or down amongst the trees and scrub.
I had lightened trim pressure until it was virtually non existant so it couldn't be trimmed to fly hands free in straight and level flight, but when working feral stock, I could through it around for several hours without my arm feeling like it was about to fall off.
When I look at commercial aircraft through, there job is to transport passengers or cargo safely from point A to point B. These aircraft should be stable in all parts of the flight envelope. Mcas as software patch for an aerodynamic or engineering design problem ... the angle of attack allowed in the flight envelope for the aircraft should have been decreased, and if limiting AoA made the aircraft unsafe to fly then design needed to be changed.
Boeing, FAA, NTSB .. complacency and rot throughout the system.flankerbanditflankerbandit , Oct 14 2019 2:10 utc | 74
I guess the reason I think about some of this is that back when I was flying, a few people suggested I build aircraft to sell. I would have liked building them, but I did not want the responsibility that accompanies this.Peter...thanks for that great story.Peter AU 1 , Oct 14 2019 4:18 utc | 76
Five thousand hours in a gyro...and herding livestock no less...now that is not only impressive but sounds like a lot of fun.
I love low and slow flying...but it comes with its own dangers and is a demanding skill set in its own right.
You're right about the gyro and its ability to handle turbulence...also very safe because that rotary wing cannot actually stall, and you can autorotate straight down like you said.
I know a few gyro pilots, but haven't been up in one...would love to give it a go...
As I said I am very skeptical of Boeing's supposed 'fix'...if another MAX goes down then I think that would be the end of it...but that's a heck of a price to pay.I remember from a number of years ago reading about the early airlines that kicked off after the WWI and more so after WWII. Many of the airforce or fighter pilots, although they could react very well to an emergency situation, it was found were not considered suitable - or of the right mindset for flying passenger aircraft. Perhaps because they were willing to take risks.. a long time since I read about it but I think that was the issue.Kiza , Oct 14 2019 6:25 utc | 77
With this in mind, a commercial aircraft needs to be designed around the capabilities and weak points of the character types best suited to that style of aviation. I guess this is what has always bugged me when putting an aircraft crash down to pilot error or saying in hindsight this or that pilot could have made the right decision in the given situation and saved the aircraft.@flankerbanditb , Oct 14 2019 7:50 utc | 78
I did not mean to say that the "elite" do give a hoot to social contract. Printing money like crazy is a much worse example. I only mean that there is a breaking point somewhere in this progression due to accumulation. It may not be the forcing of the 737Max death trap on the naive population, but eventually there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back.I took on Langewiesche's long NYT Magazine piece in 14,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX FailureRuss , Oct 14 2019 8:01 utc | 79
"Sully" Sullenburger now joined me with a Letter to the Editor of New York Times MagazineIn "What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 MAX?" William Langewiesche draws the conclusion that the pilots are primarily to blame for the fatal crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302. In resurrecting this age-old aviation canard, Langewiesche minimizes the fatal design flaws and certification failures that precipitated those tragedies, and still pose a threat to the flying public.
I am also one of the few who have flown a Boeing 737 MAX Level D full motion simulator, replicating both accident flights multiple times. I know firsthand the challenges the pilots on the doomed accident flights faced, and how wrong it is to blame them for not being able to compensate for such a pernicious and deadly design.
These emergencies did not present as a classic runaway stabilizer problem, but initially as ambiguous unreliable airspeed and altitude situations, masking MCAS.
The MCAS design should never have been approved, not by Boeing, and not by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The National Transportation Safety Board has found that Boeing made faulty assumptions both about the capability of the aircraft design to withstand damage or failure, and the level of human performance possible once the failures began to cascade. Where Boeing failed, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should have stepped in to regulate but it failed to do so. Lessons from accidents are bought in blood and we must seek all the answers to prevent the next one. We need to fix all the flaws in the current system -- corporate governance, regulatory oversight, aircraft maintenance, and yes, pilot training and experience. Only then can we ensure the safety of everyone who flies."age-old aviation canard"Bill7 , Oct 14 2019 8:11 utc | 80
Good letter from Sullenburger. I suppose the NYT wouldn't have printed it if he'd included the fact that another thing that needs to be fixed is "journalism" which is nothing but laundered corporate lies, like that of the NYT.'Sully' Sullenberger's lette to NYT Magazine in response to the William Langewiesche 737 MAX piece:Peter AU 1 , Oct 14 2019 9:57 utc | 81
"In "What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 MAX?" William Langewiesche draws the conclusion that the pilots are primarily to blame for the fatal crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian 302. In resurrecting this age-old aviation canard, Langewiesche minimizes the fatal design flaws and certification failures that precipitated those tragedies, and still pose a threat to the flying public.."
http://www.sullysullenberger.com/my-letter-to-the-editor-of-new-york-times-magazine/Off memory, it was "Sully" Sullenburger safely put an aircraft down in a river. I doubt the average commercial pilot could have pulled that off (not to denigrate the average pilot). It is good pilots like this are putting in their voices.Peter AU 1 , Oct 14 2019 10:38 utc | 82b, thanks for keeping onto this. Boeing has brought things to a point that cannot be ignored. I could never stand the boredom of flying an aircraft from point A to point B, but the tendency of media and pundits (I'm guessing pushed by the manufacturers) to blame the pilots in any commercial aviation crash has annoyed me for a long time.psychohistorian , Oct 14 2019 15:58 utc | 85Thanks for the Sullenberger/NYT update b in comment #78Bill7 , Oct 14 2019 20:00 utc | 86
Your efforts in support of civilization are appreciated.flankerbandit @ 83 "Great to see Sullenberger call out the idiot Langewiesche".Hoarsewhisperer , Oct 15 2019 8:37 utc | 91
Indeed! I can't seem to post a link right now, but for another example of corporatist toadie Langewiesche's "work", for anyone who hasn't seen it, search for 'The Lessons of ValuJet 592', at the Atlantic magazine....
Boeing engineers are frustrated EASA hasn't specified what additional measures might allay its objections, according to people close to the discussions.
The last paragraph is astonishing. It is not the task of a regulator to tell Boeing engineers how to solve their problems. The regulators set the rules and check if a manufacturer's engineering solutions comply with those.
That Boeing still does not get that and is looking for easy ways out of its problems shows that the company has yet to learn its lesson.
To which one could add...
The fact that Boeing's Board removed Muilenburg as Chairman but retained his services as CEO is virtual endorsement of his management style.
i.e. Having bullied Boeing into trouble, they're confident that he'll be able to blame someone else and bully his way out again. It'd be interesting to read the minutes of the meeting during which he bullied the Board into keeping him on as CEO...
Oct 08, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
At first blush, the suit filed in Dallas by the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SwAPA) against Boeing may seem like a family feud. SWAPA is seeking an estimated $115 million for lost pilots' pay as a result of the grounding of the 34 Boeing 737 Max planes that Southwest owns and the additional 20 that Southwest had planned to add to its fleet by year end 2019. Recall that Southwest was the largest buyer of the 737 Max, followed by American Airlines. However, the damning accusations made by the pilots' union, meaning, erm, pilots, is likely to cause Boeing not just more public relations headaches, but will also give grist to suits by crash victims.
However, one reason that the Max is a sore point with the union was that it was a key leverage point in 2016 contract negotiations:
And Boeing's assurances that the 737 Max was for all practical purposes just a newer 737 factored into the pilots' bargaining stance. Accordingly, one of the causes of action is tortious interference, that Boeing interfered in the contract negotiations to the benefit of Southwest. The filing describes at length how Boeing and Southwest were highly motivated not to have the contract dispute drag on and set back the launch of the 737 Max at Southwest, its showcase buyer. The big point that the suit makes is the plane was unsafe and the pilots never would have agreed to fly it had they known what they know now.
We've embedded the compliant at the end of the post. It's colorful and does a fine job of recapping the sorry history of the development of the airplane. It has damning passages like:
Boeing concealed the fact that the 737 MAX aircraft was not airworthy because, inter alia, it incorporated a single-point failure condition -- a software/flight control logic called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System ("MCAS") -- that,if fed erroneous data from a single angle-of-attack sensor, would command the aircraft nose-down and into an unrecoverable dive without pilot input or knowledge.
The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes:
Had SWAPA known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft in 2016, it never would have approved the inclusion of the 737 MAX aircraft as a term in its CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and agreed to operate the aircraft for Southwest. Worse still, had SWAPA known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft, it would have demanded that Boeing rectify the aircraft's fatal flaws before agreeing to include the aircraft in its CBA, and to provide its pilots, and all pilots, with the necessary information and training needed to respond to the circumstances that the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 pilots encountered nearly three years later.
And (boldface original):
Boeing Set SWAPA Pilots Up to Fail
As SWAPA President Jon Weaks, publicly stated, SWAPA pilots "were kept in the dark" by Boeing.
Boeing did not tell SWAPA pilots that MCAS existed and there was no description or mention of MCAS in the Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual.
There was therefore no way for commercial airline pilots, including SWAPA pilots, to know that MCAS would work in the background to override pilot inputs.
There was no way for them to know that MCAS drew on only one of two angle of attack sensors on the aircraft.
And there was no way for them to know of the terrifying consequences that would follow from a malfunction.
When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest."
SWAPA's pilots, like their counterparts all over the world, were set up for failure
The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like:
By March 2016, Boeing settled on a revision of the MCAS flight control logic.
However, Boeing chose to omit key safeguards that had previously been included in earlier iterations of MCAS used on the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus, a military tanker derivative of the Boeing 767 aircraft.
The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or cause a pilot to lose control. Those familiar with the tanker's design explained that these checks were incorporated because "[y]ou don't want the solution to be worse than the initial problem."
The 737 MAX version of MCAS abandoned the safeguards previously relied upon. As discussed below, the 737 MAX MCAS had greater control authority than its predecessor, activated repeatedly upon activation, and relied on input from just one of the plane's two sensors that measure the angle of the plane's nose.
In other words, Boeing can't credibly say that it didn't know better.
Here is one of the sections describing Boeing's cover-ups:
Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS itself.
In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots.
We urge you to read the complaint in full, since it contains juicy insider details, like the significance of Southwest being Boeing's 737 Max "launch partner" and what that entailed in practice, plus recounting dates and names of Boeing personnel who met with SWAPA pilots and made misrepresentations about the aircraft.
If you are time-pressed, the best MSM account is from the Seattle Times, In scathing lawsuit, Southwest pilots' union says Boeing 737 MAX was unsafe
Even though Southwest Airlines is negotiating a settlement with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 Max and the airline has promised to compensate the pilots, the pilots' union at a minimum apparently feels the need to put the heat on Boeing directly. After all, the union could withdraw the complaint if Southwest were to offer satisfactory compensation for the pilots' lost income. And pilots have incentives not to raise safety concerns about the planes they fly. Don't want to spook the horses, after all.
But Southwest pilots are not only the ones most harmed by Boeing's debacle but they are arguably less exposed to the downside of bad press about the 737 Max. It's business fliers who are most sensitive to the risks of the 737 Max, due to seeing the story regularly covered in the business press plus due to often being road warriors. Even though corporate customers account for only 12% of airline customers, they represent an estimated 75% of profits.
Southwest customers don't pay up for front of the bus seats. And many of them presumably value the combination of cheap travel, point to point routes between cities underserved by the majors, and close-in airports, which cut travel times. In other words, that combination of features will make it hard for business travelers who use Southwest regularly to give the airline up, even if the 737 Max gives them the willies. By contrast, premium seat passengers on American or United might find it not all that costly, in terms of convenience and ticket cost (if they are budget sensitive), to fly 737-Max-free Delta until those passengers regain confidence in the grounded plane.
Note that American Airlines' pilot union, when asked about the Southwest claim, said that it also believes its pilots deserve to be compensated for lost flying time, but they plan to obtain it through American Airlines.
If Boeing were smart, it would settle this suit quickly, but so far, Boeing has relied on bluster and denial. So your guess is as good as mine as to how long the legal arm-wrestling goes on.
Update 5:30 AM EDT : One important point that I neglected to include is that the filing also recounts, in gory detail, how Boeing went into "Blame the pilots" mode after the Lion Air crash, insisting the cause was pilot error and would therefore not happen again. Boeing made that claim on a call to all operators, including SWAPA, and then three days later in a meeting with SWAPA.
However, Boeing's actions were inconsistent with this claim. From the filing:
Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft.
Relying on Boeing's description of the problem, the AD directed that in the event of un-commanded nose-down stabilizer trim such as what happened during the Lion Air crash, the flight crew should comply with the Runaway Stabilizer procedure in the Operating Procedures of the 737 MAX manual.
But the AD did not provide a complete description of MCAS or the problem in 737 MAX aircraft that led to the Lion Air crash, and would lead to another crash and the 737 MAX's grounding just months later.
An MCAS failure is not like a runaway stabilizer. A runaway stabilizer has continuous un-commanded movement of the tail, whereas MCAS is not continuous and pilots (theoretically) can counter the nose-down movement, after which MCAS would move the aircraft tail down again.
Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft.
Even after the Lion Air crash, Boeing's description of MCAS was still insufficient to put correct its lack of disclosure as demonstrated by a second MCAS-caused crash.
We hoisted this detail because insiders were spouting in our comments section, presumably based on Boeing's patter, that the Lion Air pilots were clearly incompetent, had they only executed the well-known "runaway stabilizer," all would have been fine. Needless to say, this assertion has been shown to be incorrect.
Titus , October 8, 2019 at 4:38 am
Excellent, by any standard. Which does remind of of the NYT zine story (William Langewiesche Published Sept. 18, 2019) making the claim that basically the pilots who crashed their planes weren't real "Airman".
And making the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude ✓.
And especially if you as a pilot didn't know MCAS was there in the first place. This sort of engineering by Boeing is criminal. And the lying. To everyone. Oh, least we all forget the processing power of the in flight computer is that of a intel 286. There are times I just want to be beamed back to the home planet. Where we care for each other.
Carolinian , October 8, 2019 at 8:32 am
One should also point out that Langewiesche said that Boeing made disastrous mistakes with the MCAS and that the very future of the Max is cloudy. His article was useful both for greater detail about what happened and for offering some pushback to the idea that the pilots had nothing to do with the accidents.
As for the above, it was obvious from the first Seattle Times stories that these two events and the grounding were going to be a lawsuit magnet. But some of us think Boeing deserves at least a little bit of a defense because their side has been totally silent–either for legal reasons or CYA reasons on the part of their board and bad management.
Brooklin Bridge , October 8, 2019 at 8:08 am
Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit above
safetyall else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing.
Summer , October 8, 2019 at 9:01 am
"The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or cause a pilot to lose control "
"Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS itself.
In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots "
This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the automation crapification of everything.
Sep 23, 2019 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
et Al September 17, 2019 at 10:19 amFlight Global: Boeing values 20-year Chinese market at $2.9 trillionJen September 17, 2019 at 3:50 pm
Boeing forecasts that China will need 8,090 new commercial aircraft over the next 20 years in addition to $1.6 billion in services related to passenger air transport.
Its 2019 China Commercial Market Outlook for the next two decades sees the entire aircraft and services market through 2038 reaching $2.9 trillion, a 7% increase over its forecast last year.
What a tough one for Boeing. On the one hand it sells airliners to China, on the other it makes and sells weapons to fire at China! Like Russia, be in no doubt that China will work hard to minimize any dependence on the West (sic the USA) for any critical equipment like aero engines. The West seems to have learned nothing that threats and sanctions against strong countries will ultimately cost them much more in the long run, good will and more importantly trust , burnt to a cinder.Erm, I think China was the first country to ground Boeing 737 MAX jets over the Angle of Attack sensor issue that caused the Indonesian and Ethiopian Boeing 737 MAX planes to crash after take-off, killing a combined total of 346 people.Mark Chapman September 17, 2019 at 7:03 pm
f Boeing is keen to sell airliners to China, and especially its 737 MAX jets (because they're expected to be the workhorses of Boeing's range of passenger aircraft), the company has a lot of work to do: either swallow its pride, redesign the jets to balance properly and work properly and retrain the pilots appropriately; or be prepared for any consequences if one of its airliners fails a third time because of the same problem.
Like LikeThe Chinese would need their heads examined if they bought Boeing after the graphic example they are even now observing, that the United States will leverage any advantage in order to demand concessions. Other countries – like Iran – who have bought American aircraft have seen the USA cut them off from spare parts and withdraw all the American technicians they insist do the maintenance routines. Justin Trudeau might fly around in a 737 just to demonstrate how confident he feels in American know-how and technology, but there's no reason for anyone else to act like such a retard.et Al September 18, 2019 at 3:22 am
Boeing does make a good aircraft. But Airbus is just as good, and more importantly, it's not American. It's bad enough that it's French, considering how the French under Hollande bent over for Washington, and canceled the warship contract they had signed with Russia when the first ship was already built and ready for delivery. Hopefully they learned a lesson, considering how bitter the French builders were at Hollande's spinelessness. But there's no reason China can't build its own airliners in cooperation with Russia. The USA will make a big noise about not certifying it, but the threat by China to junk its remaining Boeings would strike fear into Boeing's heart, and it has many lobbyists at court.
I hope everyone can see that this is only fairness in action. Americans proclaim themselves the champions of fairness – well, then, surely they will understand how, after the US government bullying everyone and American steelworkers smirking over the advantages Trump's tariffs on its neighbours bestowed upon them, other countries suddenly were not eager to buy American products. Trump's technique is to gain market share by prohibiting competition. Nobody should be surprised when American products in foreign markets are shunned.
Like LikeIt's interesting that Boeing has a 737 fitting and completion center in Zhoushan, China whereas Airbus builds entire A320s at Tianjin (50 p/y starting 2009) as it also does in Mobile, Alabama. And let us not forget that a VIP 767 ordered for Chairman Jiang Zemin was found to be bugged back in 2003
Aug 25, 2019 | portside.orgThe invisible hand is more like a thumb on the scale for the world's elites. That's why market fundamentalism has been unmasked as bogus economics but keeps winning politically. This article appears in the Summer 2019 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here .
Since the late 1970s, we've had a grand experiment to test the claim that free markets really do work best. This resurrection occurred despite the practical failure of laissez-faire in the 1930s, the resulting humiliation of free-market theory, and the contrasting success of managed capitalism during the three-decade postwar boom.
Yet when growth faltered in the 1970s, libertarian economic theory got another turn at bat. This revival proved extremely convenient for the conservatives who came to power in the 1980s. The neoliberal counterrevolution, in theory and policy, has reversed or undermined nearly every aspect of managed capitalism -- from progressive taxation, welfare transfers, and antitrust, to the empowerment of workers and the regulation of banks and other major industries.
Neoliberalism's premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of the market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy's winners and rewarding its losers. So government should get out of the market's way.
By the 1990s, even moderate liberals had been converted to the belief that social objectives can be achieved by harnessing the power of markets. Intermittent periods of governance by Democratic presidents slowed but did not reverse the slide to neoliberal policy and doctrine. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party approved.
Now, after nearly half a century, the verdict is in. Virtually every one of these policies has failed, even on their own terms. Enterprise has been richly rewarded, taxes have been cut, and regulation reduced or privatized. The economy is vastly more unequal, yet economic growth is slower and more chaotic than during the era of managed capitalism. Deregulation has produced not salutary competition, but market concentration. Economic power has resulted in feedback loops of political power, in which elites make rules that bolster further concentration.
The culprit isn't just "markets" -- some impersonal force that somehow got loose again. This is a story of power using theory. The mixed economy was undone by economic elites, who revised rules for their own benefit. They invested heavily in friendly theorists to bless this shift as sound and necessary economics, and friendly politicians to put those theories into practice.
Recent years have seen two spectacular cases of market mispricing with devastating consequences: the near-depression of 2008 and irreversible climate change. The economic collapse of 2008 was the result of the deregulation of finance. It cost the real U.S. economy upwards of $15 trillion (and vastly more globally), depending on how you count, far more than any conceivable efficiency gain that might be credited to financial innovation. Free-market theory presumes that innovation is necessarily benign. But much of the financial engineering of the deregulatory era was self-serving, opaque, and corrupt -- the opposite of an efficient and transparent market.
The existential threat of global climate change reflects the incompetence of markets to accurately price carbon and the escalating costs of pollution. The British economist Nicholas Stern has aptly termed the worsening climate catastrophe history's greatest case of market failure. Here again, this is not just the result of failed theory. The entrenched political power of extractive industries and their political allies influences the rules and the market price of carbon. This is less an invisible hand than a thumb on the scale. The premise of efficient markets provides useful cover.
The grand neoliberal experiment of the past 40 years has demonstrated that markets in fact do not regulate themselves. Managed markets turn out to be more equitable and more efficient. Yet the theory and practical influence of neoliberalism marches splendidly on, because it is so useful to society's most powerful people -- as a scholarly veneer to what would otherwise be a raw power grab. The British political economist Colin Crouch captured this anomaly in a book nicely titled The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism . Why did neoliberalism not die? As Crouch observed, neoliberalism failed both as theory and as policy, but succeeded superbly as power politics for economic elites.
The neoliberal ascendance has had another calamitous cost -- to democratic legitimacy. As government ceased to buffer market forces, daily life has become more of a struggle for ordinary people. The elements of a decent middle-class life are elusive -- reliable jobs and careers, adequate pensions, secure medical care, affordable housing, and college that doesn't require a lifetime of debt. Meanwhile, life has become ever sweeter for economic elites, whose income and wealth have pulled away and whose loyalty to place, neighbor, and nation has become more contingent and less reliable.
Large numbers of people, in turn, have given up on the promise of affirmative government, and on democracy itself. After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, ours was widely billed as an era when triumphant liberal capitalism would march hand in hand with liberal democracy. But in a few brief decades, the ostensibly secure regime of liberal democracy has collapsed in nation after nation, with echoes of the 1930s.
As the great political historian Karl Polanyi warned, when markets overwhelm society, ordinary people often turn to tyrants. In regimes that border on neofascist, klepto-capitalists get along just fine with dictators, undermining the neoliberal premise of capitalism and democracy as complements. Several authoritarian thugs, playing on tribal nationalism as the antidote to capitalist cosmopolitanism, are surprisingly popular.
It's also important to appreciate that neoliberalism is not laissez-faire. Classically, the premise of a "free market" is that government simply gets out of the way. This is nonsensical, since all markets are creatures of rules, most fundamentally rules defining property, but also rules defining credit, debt, and bankruptcy; rules defining patents, trademarks, and copyrights; rules defining terms of labor; and so on. Even deregulation requires rules. In Polanyi's words, "laissez-faire was planned."
The political question is who gets to make the rules, and for whose benefit. The neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman invoked free markets, but in practice the neoliberal regime has promoted rules created by and for private owners of capital, to keep democratic government from asserting rules of fair competition or countervailing social interests. The regime has rules protecting pharmaceutical giants from the right of consumers to import prescription drugs or to benefit from generics. The rules of competition and intellectual property generally have been tilted to protect incumbents. Rules of bankruptcy have been tilted in favor of creditors. Deceptive mortgages require elaborate rules, written by the financial sector and then enforced by government. Patent rules have allowed agribusiness and giant chemical companies like Monsanto to take over much of agriculture -- the opposite of open markets. Industry has invented rules requiring employees and consumers to submit to binding arbitration and to relinquish a range of statutory and common-law rights.Neoliberalism as Theory, Policy, and Power
It's worth taking a moment to unpack the term "neoliberalism." The coinage can be confusing to American ears because the "liberal" part refers not to the word's ordinary American usage, meaning moderately left-of-center, but to classical economic liberalism otherwise known as free-market economics. The "neo" part refers to the reassertion of the claim that the laissez-faire model of the economy was basically correct after all.
Few proponents of these views embraced the term neoliberal . Mostly, they called themselves free-market conservatives. "Neoliberal" was a coinage used mainly by their critics, sometimes as a neutral descriptive term, sometimes as an epithet. The use became widespread in the era of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
To add to the confusion, a different and partly overlapping usage was advanced in the 1970s by the group around the Washington Monthly magazine. They used "neoliberal" to mean a new, less statist form of American liberalism. Around the same time, the term neoconservative was used as a self-description by former liberals who embraced conservatism, on cultural, racial, economic, and foreign-policy grounds. Neoconservatives were neoliberals in economics.
Beginning in the 1970s, resurrected free-market theory was interwoven with both conservative politics and significant investments in the production of theorists and policy intellectuals. This occurred not just in well-known conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage, Cato, and the Manhattan Institute, but through more insidious investments in academia. Lavishly funded centers and tenured chairs were underwritten by the Olin, Scaife, Bradley, and other far-right foundations to promote such variants of free-market theory as law and economics, public choice, rational choice, cost-benefit analysis, maximize-shareholder-value, and kindred schools of thought. These theories colonized several academic disciplines. All were variations on the claim that markets worked and that government should get out of the way.
Each of these bodies of sub-theory relied upon its own variant of neoliberal ideology. An intensified version of the theory of comparative advantage was used not just to cut tariffs but to use globalization as all-purpose deregulation. The theory of maximizing shareholder value was deployed to undermine the entire range of financial regulation and workers' rights. Cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing costs and discounting benefits, was used to discredit a good deal of health, safety, and environmental regulation. Public choice theory, associated with the economist James Buchanan and an entire ensuing school of economics and political science, was used to impeach democracy itself, on the premise that policies were hopelessly afflicted by "rent-seekers" and "free-riders."
Click here to read how Robert Kuttner has been unmasking the fallacies of neoliberalism for decades
Market failure was dismissed as a rare special case; government failure was said to be ubiquitous. Theorists worked hand in glove with lobbyists and with public officials. But in every major case where neoliberal theory generated policy, the result was political success and economic failure.
For example, supply-side economics became the justification for tax cuts, on the premise that taxes punished enterprise. Supposedly, if taxes were cut, especially taxes on capital and on income from capital, the resulting spur to economic activity would be so potent that deficits would be far less than predicted by "static" economic projections, and perhaps even pay for themselves. There have been six rounds of this experiment, from the tax cuts sponsored by Jimmy Carter in 1978 to the immense 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed by Donald Trump. In every case some economic stimulus did result, mainly from the Keynesian jolt to demand, but in every case deficits increased significantly. Conservatives simply stopped caring about deficits. The tax cuts were often inefficient as well as inequitable, since the loopholes steered investment to tax-favored uses rather than the most economically logical ones. Dozens of America's most profitable corporations paid no taxes.
Robert Bork's "antitrust paradox," holding that antitrust enforcement actually weakened competition, was used as the doctrine to sideline the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Supposedly, if government just got out of the way, market forces would remain more competitive because monopoly pricing would invite innovation and new entrants to the market. In practice, industry after industry became more heavily concentrated. Incumbents got in the habit of buying out innovators or using their market power to crush them. This pattern is especially insidious in the tech economy of platform monopolies, where giants that provide platforms, such as Google and Amazon, use their market power and superior access to customer data to out-compete rivals who use their platforms. Markets, once again, require rules beyond the benign competence of the market actors themselves. Only democratic government can set equitable rules. And when democracy falters, undemocratic governments in cahoots with corrupt private plutocrats will make the rules.
Human capital theory, another variant of neoliberal application of markets to partly social questions, justified deregulating labor markets and crushing labor unions. Unions supposedly used their power to get workers paid more than their market worth. Likewise minimum wage laws. But the era of depressed wages has actually seen a decline in rates of productivity growth. Conversely, does any serious person think that the inflated pay of the financial moguls who crashed the economy accurately reflects their contribution to economic activity? In the case of hedge funds and private equity, the high incomes of fund sponsors are the result of transfers of wealth and income from employees, other stakeholders, and operating companies to the fund managers, not the fruits of more efficient management.
There is a broad literature discrediting this body of pseudo-scholarly work in great detail. Much of neoliberalism represents the ever-reliable victory of assumption over evidence. Yet neoliberal theory lived on because it was so convenient for elites, and because of the inertial power of the intellectual capital that had been created. The well-funded neoliberal habitat has provided comfortable careers for two generations of scholars and pseudo-scholars who migrate between academia, think tanks, K Street, op-ed pages, government, Wall Street, and back again. So even if the theory has been demolished both by scholarly rebuttal and by events, it thrives in powerful institutions and among their political allies.The Practical Failure of Neoliberal Policies
Financial deregulation is neoliberalism's most palpable deregulatory failure, but far from the only one. Electricity deregulation on balance has increased monopoly power and raised costs to consumers, but has failed to offer meaningful "shopping around" opportunities to bring down prices. We have gone from regulated monopolies with predictable earnings, costs, wages, and consumer protections to deregulated monopolies or oligopolies with substantial pricing power. Since the Bell breakup, the telephone system tells a similar story of re-concentration, dwindling competition, price-gouging, and union-bashing.
Air travel has been a poster child for advocates of deregulation, but the actual record is mixed at best. Airline deregulation produced serial bankruptcies of every major U.S. airline, often at the cost of worker pay and pension funds.
Ticket prices have declined on average over the past two decades, but the traveling public suffers from a crazy quilt of fares, declining service, shrinking seats and legroom, and exorbitant penalties for the perfectly normal sin of having to change plans. Studies have shown that fares actually declined at a faster rate in the 20 years before deregulation in 1978 than in the 20 years afterward, because the prime source of greater efficiency in airline travel is the introduction of more fuel-efficient planes.
The roller-coaster experience of airline profits and losses has reduced the capacity of airlines to purchase more fuel-efficient aircraft, and the average age of the fleet keeps increasing. The use of "fortress hubs" to defend market pricing power has reduced the percentage of nonstop flights, the most efficient way to fly from one point to another.
Robert Bork's spurious arguments that antitrust enforcement hurt competition became the basis for dismantling antitrust. Massive concentration resulted. Charles Tasnadi/AP Photo
In addition to deregulation, three prime areas of practical neoliberal policies are the use of vouchers as "market-like" means to social goals, the privatization of public services, and the use of tax subsides rather than direct outlays. In every case, government revenues are involved, so this is far from a free market to begin with. But the premise is that market disciplines can achieve public purposes more efficiently than direct public provision.
The evidence provides small comfort for these claims. One core problem is that the programs invariably give too much to the for-profit middlemen at the expense of the intended beneficiaries. A related problem is that the process of using vouchers and contracts invites corruption. It is a different form of "rent-seeking" -- pursuit of monopoly profits -- than that attributed to government by public choice theorists, but corruption nonetheless. Often, direct public provision is far more transparent and accountable than a web of contractors.
A further problem is that in practice there is often far less competition than imagined, because of oligopoly power, vendor lock-in, and vendor political influence. These experiments in marketization to serve social goals do not operate in some Platonic policy laboratory, where the only objective is true market efficiency yoked to the public good. They operate in the grubby world of practical politics, where the vendors are closely allied with conservative politicians whose purposes may be to discredit social transfers entirely, or to reward corporate allies, or to benefit from kickbacks either directly or as campaign contributions.
Privatized prisons are a case in point. A few large, scandal-ridden companies have gotten most of the contracts, often through political influence. Far from bringing better quality and management efficiency, they have profited by diverting operating funds and worsening conditions that were already deplorable, and finding new ways to charge inmates higher fees for necessary services such as phone calls. To the extent that money was actually saved, most of the savings came from reducing the pay and professionalism of guards, increasing overcrowding, and decreasing already inadequate budgets for food and medical care.
A similar example is the privatization of transportation services such as highways and even parking meters. In several Midwestern states, toll roads have been sold to private vendors. The governor who makes the deal gains a temporary fiscal windfall, while drivers end up paying higher tolls often for decades. Investment bankers who broker the deal also take their cut. Some of the money does go into highway improvements, but that could have been done more efficiently in the traditional way via direct public ownership and competitive bidding.
Housing vouchers substantially reward landlords who use the vouchers to fill empty houses with poor people until the neighborhood gentrifies, at which point the owner is free to quit the program and charge market rentals. Thus public funds are used to underwrite a privately owned, quasi-social housing sector -- whose social character is only temporary. No permanent social housing is produced despite the extensive public outlay. The companion use of tax incentives to attract passive investment in affordable housing promotes economically inefficient tax shelters, and shunts public funds into the pockets of the investors -- money that might otherwise have gone directly to the housing.
The Affordable Care Act is a form of voucher. But the regulated private insurance markets in the ACA have not fully lived up to their promise, in part because of the extensive market power retained by private insurers and in part because the right has relentlessly sought to sabotage the program -- another political feedback loop. The sponsors assumed that competition would lower costs and increase consumer choice. But in too many counties, there are three or fewer competing plans, and in some cases just one.
As more insurance plans and hospital systems become for-profit, massive investment goes into such wasteful activities as manipulation of billing, "risk selection," and other gaming of the rules. Our mixed-market system of health care requires massive regulation to work with tolerable efficiency. In practice, this degenerates into an infinite regress of regulator versus commercial profit-maximizer, reminiscent of Mad magazine's "Spy versus Spy," with the industry doing end runs to Congress to further rig the rules. Straight-ahead public insurance such as Medicare is generally far more efficient.
An extensive literature has demonstrated that for-profit voucher schools do no better and often do worse than comparable public schools, and are vulnerable to multiple forms of gaming and corruption. Proprietors of voucher schools are superb at finding ways of excluding costly special-needs students, so that those costs are imposed on what remains of public schools; they excel at gaming test results. While some voucher and charter schools, especially nonprofit ones, sometimes improve on average school performance, so do many public schools. The record is also muddied by the fact that many ostensibly nonprofit schools contract out management to for-profit companies.
Tax preferences have long been used ostensibly to serve social goals. The Earned Income Tax Credit is considered one of the more successful cases of using market-like measures -- in this case a refundable tax credit -- to achieve the social goal of increasing worker take-home pay. It has also been touted as the rare case of bipartisan collaboration. Liberals get more money for workers. Conservatives get to reward the deserving poor, since the EITC is conditioned on employment. Conservatives get a further ideological win, since the EITC is effectively a wage subsidy from the government, but is experienced as a tax refund rather than a benefit of government.
Recent research, however, shows that the EITC is primarily a subsidy of low-wage employers, who are able to pay their workers a lot less than a market-clearing wage. In industries such as nursing homes or warehouses, where many workers qualified for the EITC work side by side with ones not eligible, the non-EITC workers get substandard wages. The existence of the EITC depresses the level of the wages that have to come out of the employer's pocket.Neoliberalism's Influence on Liberals
As free-market theory resurged, many moderate liberals embraced these policies. In the inflationary 1970s, regulation became a scapegoat that supposedly deterred salutary price competition. Some, such as economist Alfred Kahn, President Carter's adviser on deregulation, supported deregulation on what he saw as the merits. Other moderates supported neoliberal policies opportunistically, to curry favor with powerful industries and donors. Market-like policies were also embraced by liberals as a tactical way to find common ground with conservatives.
Several forms of deregulation -- of airlines, trucking, and electric power -- began not under Reagan but under Carter. Financial deregulation took off under Bill Clinton. Democratic presidents, as much as Republicans, promoted trade deals that undermined social standards. Cost-benefit analysis by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was more of a choke point under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush.
"Command and control" became an all-purpose pejorative for disparaging perfectly sensible and efficient regulation. "Market-like" became a fashionable concept, not just on the free-market right but on the moderate left. Cass Sunstein, who served as Obama's anti-regulation czar,uses the example of "nudges" as a more market-like and hence superior alternative to direct regulation, though with rare exceptions their impact is trivial. Moreover, nudges only work in tandem with regulation.
There are indeed some interventionist policies that use market incentives to serve social goals. But contrary to free-market theory, the market-like incentives first require substantial regulation and are not a substitute for it. A good example is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which used tradable emission rights to cut the output of sulfur dioxide, the cause of acid rain. This was supported by both the George H.W. Bush administration and by leading Democrats. But before the trading regime could work, Congress first had to establish permissible ceilings on sulfur dioxide output -- pure command and control.
There are many other instances, such as nutrition labeling, truth-in-lending, and disclosure of EPA gas mileage results, where the market-like premise of a better-informed consumer complements command regulation but is no substitute for it. Nearly all of the increase in fuel efficiency, for example, is the result of command regulations that require auto fleets to hit a gas mileage target. The fact that EPA gas mileage figures are prominently disclosed on new car stickers may have modest influence, but motor fuels are so underpriced that car companies have success selling gas-guzzlers despite the consumer labeling.
Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, were big promoters of financial deregulation.
Politically, whatever rationale there was for liberals to make common ground with libertarians is now largely gone. The authors of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made no attempt to meet Democrats partway; they excluded the opposition from the legislative process entirely. This was opportunistic tax cutting for elites, pure and simple. The right today also abandoned the quest for a middle ground on environmental policy, on anti-poverty policy, on health policy -- on virtually everything. Neoliberal ideology did its historic job of weakening intellectual and popular support for the proposition that affirmative government can better the lives of citizens and that the Democratic Party is a reliable steward of that social compact. Since Reagan, the right's embrace of the free market has evolved from partly principled idealism into pure opportunism and obstruction.Neoliberalism and Hyper-Globalism
The post-1990 rules of globalization, supported by conservatives and moderate liberals alike, are the quintessence of neoliberalism. At Bretton Woods in 1944, the use of fixed exchange rates and controls on speculative private capital, plus the creation of the IMFand World Bank, were intended to allow member countries to practice national forms of managed capitalism, insulated from the destructive and deflationary influences of short-term speculative private capital flows. As doctrine and power shifted in the 1970s, the IMF, the World Bank, and later the WTO, which replaced the old GATT, mutated into their ideological opposite. Rather than instruments of support for mixed national economies, they became enforcers of neoliberal policies.
The standard package of the "Washington Consensus" of approved policies for developing nations included demands that they open their capital markets to speculative private finance, as well as cutting taxes on capital, weakening social transfers, and gutting labor regulation and public ownership. But private capital investment in poor countries proved to be fickle. The result was often excessive inflows during the boom part of the cycle and punitive withdrawals during the bust -- the opposite of the patient, long-term development capital that these countries needed and that was provided by the World Bank of an earlier era. During the bust phase, the IMF typically imposes even more stringent neoliberal demands as the price of financial bailouts, including perverse budgetary austerity, supposedly to restore the confidence of the very speculative capital markets responsible for the boom-bust cycle.
Dozens of nations, from Latin America to East Asia, went through this cycle of boom, bust, and then IMF pile-on. Greece is still suffering the impact. After 1990, hyper-globalism also included trade treaties whose terms favored multinational corporations. Traditionally, trade agreements had been mainly about reciprocal reductions of tariffs. Nations were free to have whatever brand of regulation, public investment, or social policies they chose. With the advent of the WTO, many policies other than tariffs were branded as trade distorting, even as takings without compensation. Trade deals were used to give foreign capital free access and to dismantle national regulation and public ownership. Special courts were created in which foreign corporations and investors could do end runs around national authorities to challenge regulation for impeding commerce.
At first, the sponsors of the new trade regime tried to claim the successful economies of East Asia as evidence of the success of the neoliberal recipe. Supposedly, these nations had succeeded by pursuing "export-led growth," exposing their domestic economies to salutary competition. But these claims were soon exposed as the opposite of what had actually occurred. In fact, Japan, South Korea, smaller Asian nations, and above all China had thrived by rejecting every major tenet of neoliberalism. Their capital markets were tightly regulated and insulated from foreign speculative capital. They developed world-class industries as state-led cartels that favored domestic production and supply. East Asia got into trouble only when it followed IMF dictates to throw open capital markets, and in the aftermath they recovered by closing those markets and assembling war chests of hard currency so that they'd never again have to go begging to the IMF. Enthusiasts of hyper-globalization also claimed that it benefited poor countries by increasing export opportunities, but as the success of East Asia shows, there is more than one way to boost exports -- and many poorer countries suffered under the terms of the global neoliberal regime.
Nor was the damage confined to the developing world. As the work of Harvard economist Dani Rodrik has demonstrated, democracy requires a polity. For better or for worse, the polity and democratic citizenship are national. By enhancing the global market at the expense of the democratic state, the current brand of hyper-globalization deliberately weakens the capacity of states to regulate markets, and weakens democracy itself.When Do Markets Work?
The failure of neoliberalism as economic and social policy does not mean that markets never work. A command economy is even more utopian and perverse than a neoliberal one. The practical quest is for an efficient and equitable middle ground.
The neoliberal story of how the economy operates assumes a largely frictionless marketplace, where prices are set by supply and demand, and the price mechanism allocates resources to their optimal use in the economy as a whole. For this discipline to work as advertised, however, there can be no market power, competition must be plentiful, sellers and buyers must have roughly equal information, and there can be no significant externalities. Much of the 20th century was practical proof that these conditions did not describe a good part of the actual economy. And if markets priced things wrong, the market system did not aggregate to an efficient equilibrium, and depressions could become self-deepening. As Keynes demonstrated, only a massive jolt of government spending could restart the engines, even if market pricing was partly violated in the process.
Nonetheless, in many sectors of the economy, the process of buying and selling is close enough to the textbook conditions of perfect competition that the price system works tolerably well. Supermarkets, for instance, deliver roughly accurate prices because of the consumer's freedom and knowledge to shop around. Likewise much of retailing. However, when we get into major realms of the economy with positive or negative externalities, such as education and health, markets are not sufficient. And in other major realms, such as pharmaceuticals, where corporations use their political power to rig the terms of patents, the market doesn't produce a cure.
The basic argument of neoliberalism can fit on a bumper sticker. Markets work; governments don't . If you want to embellish that story, there are two corollaries: Markets embody human freedom. And with markets, people basically get what they deserve; to alter market outcomes is to spoil the poor and punish the productive. That conclusion logically flows from the premise that markets are efficient. Milton Friedman became rich, famous, and influential by teasing out the several implications of these simple premises.
It is much harder to articulate the case for a mixed economy than the case for free markets, precisely because the mixed economy is mixed. The rebuttal takes several paragraphs. The more complex story holds that markets are substantially efficient in some realms but far from efficient in others, because of positive and negative externalities, the tendency of financial markets to create cycles of boom and bust, the intersection of self-interest and corruption, the asymmetry of information between company and consumer, the asymmetry of power between corporation and employee, the power of the powerful to rig the rules, and the fact that there are realms of human life (the right to vote, human liberty, security of one's person) that should not be marketized.
And if markets are not perfectly efficient, then distributive questions are partly political choices. Some societies pay pre-K teachers the minimum wage as glorified babysitters. Others educate and compensate them as professionals. There is no "correct" market-derived wage, because pre-kindergarten is a social good and the issue of how to train and compensate teachers is a social choice, not a market choice. The same is true of the other human services, including medicine. Nor is there a theoretically correct set of rules for patents, trademarks, and copyrights. These are politically derived, either balancing the interests of innovation with those of diffusion -- or being politically captured by incumbent industries.
Governments can in principle improve on market outcomes via regulation, but that fact is complicated by the risk of regulatory capture. So another issue that arises is market failure versus polity failure, which brings us back to the urgency of strong democracy and effective government.After Neoliberalism
The political reversal of neoliberalism can only come through practical politics and policies that demonstrate how government often can serve citizens more equitably and efficiently than markets. Revision of theory will take care of itself. There is no shortage of dissenting theorists and empirical policy researchers whose scholarly work has been vindicated by events. What they need is not more theory but more influence, both in the academy and in the corridors of power. They are available to advise a new progressive administration, if that administration can get elected and if it refrains from hiring neoliberal advisers.
There are also some relatively new areas that invite policy innovation. These include regulation of privacy rights versus entrepreneurial liberties in the digital realm; how to think of the internet as a common carrier; how to update competition and antitrust policy as platform monopolies exert new forms of market power; how to modernize labor-market policy in the era of the gig economy; and the role of deeper income supplements as machines replace human workers.
The failed neoliberal experiment also makes the case not just for better-regulated capitalism but for direct public alternatives as well. Banking, done properly, especially the provision of mortgage finance, is close to a public utility. Much of it could be public. A great deal of research is done more honestly and more cost-effectively in public, peer-reviewed institutions such as the NIH than by a substantially corrupt private pharmaceutical industry.
Social housing often is more cost-effective than so-called public-private partnerships. Public power is more efficient to generate, less prone to monopolistic price-gouging, and friendlier to the needed green transition than private power. The public option in health care is far more efficient than the current crazy quilt in which each layer of complexity adds opacity and cost. Public provision does require public oversight, but that is more straightforward and transparent than the byzantine dance of regulation and counter-regulation.
The two other benefits of direct public provision are that the public gets direct evidence of government delivering something of value, and that the countervailing power of democracy to harness markets is enhanced. A mixed economy depends above all on a strong democracy -- one even stronger than the democracy that succumbed to the corrupting influence of economic elites and their neoliberal intellectual allies beginning half a century ago. The antidote to the resurrected neoliberal fable is the resurrection of democracy -- strong enough to tame the market in a way that tames it for keeps.
Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is The Stakes: 2020 and the Survival of American Democracy . In addition to writing for the Prospect, he writes for HuffPost, The Boston Globe, and The New York Review of Books.
Read the original article at Prospect.org.
Used with the permission. © The American Prospect, Prospect.org, 2019. All rights reserved.
Click here to support the Prospect's brand of independent impact journalism.
Sep 18, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The FAA evidently lacked perspective on how much trouble it was in after the two international headline-grabbing crashes of the Boeing 737 Max. It established a "multiagency panel" meaning one that included representatives from foreign aviation regulators, last April. A new Wall Street Journal article reports that the findings of this panel, to be released in a few weeks, are expected to lambaste the FAA 737 Max approval process and urge a major redo of how automated aircraft systems get certified .
The aim of the panel, called the Joint Authorities Technical Review, was to expedite getting the 737 Max into the air by creating a vehicle for achieve consensus among foreign regulators who had grounded the 737 Max before the FAA had. But these very regulators had also made clear they needed to be satisfied before they'd let it fly in their airspace.
The JATR gave them a venue for reaching a consensus, but it wasn't the consensus the FAA sought. The foreign regulators, despite being given a forum in which to hash things out with the FAA, are not following the FAA's timetable. The FAA hopes to give the 737 Max the green light in November, while the other regulators all have said they have issues that are unlikely to be resolved by then. The agency is now in the awkward position of having a body it set up to be authoritative turn on the agency's own procedures.
The Seattle Times, which has broken many important on the Boeing debacle, reported on how the FAA had moved further and further down the path of relying on aircraft manufactures for critical elements of certification. Not all of this was the result of capture; with the evolution of technology, even the sharpest and best intended engineer in government employ would become stale on the state of the art in a few years.
However, one of the critical decisions the FAA took was to change the reporting lines of the manufacturer employees who were assigned to FAA certification. From a May post :
Although all stories paint a broadly similar picture, .the most damning is a detailed piece at the Seattle Times, Engineers say Boeing pushed to limit safety testing in race to certify planes, including 737 MAX ..The article gives an incriminating account of how Boeing got the FAA to delegate more and more certification authority to the airline, and then pressured and abused employees who refused to back down on safety issues .
As the Seattle Times described, the problems extended beyond the 737 Max MCAS software shortcomings; indeed, none of the incidents in the story relate to it.
In 2004, the FAA changed its system for front-line supervision of airline certification from having the FAA select airline certification employees who reported directly to the FAA to having airline employees responsible for FAA certification report to airline management and have their reports filtered through them (the FAA attempted to maintain that the certification employees could provide their recommendations directly to the agency, but the Seattle Times obtained policy manuals that stated otherwise).
Mind you, the Seattle Times was not alone in depicting the FAA as captured by Boeing. On Monday, the Post and Courier reported about the South Carolina plant that produced 787s found with tools rattling inside that Boeing SC lets mechanics inspect their own work, leading to repeated mistakes, workers say. These mechanic certifications would never have been kosher if the FAA were vigilant. Similarly, Reuters described how Boeing weakened another safety check, that of pilot input.
One of the objectives for creating this panel was to restore confidence in Boeing and the FAA, but that was always going to be a tall order, particularly after more bad news about various 737 Max systems and Boeing being less than forthcoming with its customers and regulators emerged. From the Wall Street Journal :
As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of these people, is that essential design changes didn't receive adequate FAA attention.
The report, these officials said, also is expected to fault the agency for what it describes as inadequate data sharing with foreign authorities during its original certification of the MAX two years ago, along with relying on mistaken industrywide assumptions about how average pilots would react to certain flight-control emergencies .
The FAA has stressed that the advisory group doesn't have veto power over modifications to MCAS.
But the report could influence changes to traditional engineering principles determining the safety of new aircraft models. Certification of software controlling increasingly interconnected and automated onboard systems "is a whole new ballgame requiring new approaches," according to a senior industry safety expert who has discussed the report with regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.
If the FAA thinks it can keep this genie the bottle, it is naive. The foreign regulators represented on the task force, including from China and the EU, have ready access to the international business press. And there will also be an embarrassing fact on the ground, that the FAA, which was last to ground the 737 Max, will be the first to let it fly again, and potentially by not requiring safety protections that other regulators will insist on. For instance, the Journal reports that Canadian authorities expect to require additional simulator training for 737 Max pilots. Recall that Boeing's biggest 737 Max customer, Southwest Airlines, was so resistant to the cost of additional simulator training that it put a penalty clause into its contract if wound up being necessary.
It's a given that the FAA will be unable to regain its former stature and that all of its certifications of major aircraft will now be
second guessedsubject to further review by major foreign regulators. That in turn will impose costs on Boeing, of changing its certification process from needing to placate only the FAA to having to appease potentially multiple parties. For instance, the EU regulator is poised to raise the bar on the 737 Max:
Patrick Ky, head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, told the European Parliament earlier this month, "It's very likely that international authorities will want a second opinion" on any FAA decision to lift the grounding.
Even after EASA gives the green light, agency officials are expected to push for significant additional safety enhancements to the fleet. Most prominently, EASA has proposed to eventually add to the MAX a third fully functional angle-of-attack sensor -- which effectively measures how far the plane's nose is pointed up or down -- underscoring the controversy expected to swirl around the plane for the foreseeable future.
A monopoly is a precious thing to have. Too bad Boeing failed to appreciate that in its zeal for profits. If the manufacturer winds up facing different demands in different regulatory markets, it will have created more complexity for itself. Can it afford not to manufacture to the highest common denominator, say by making an FAA-only approved bird for Southwest and trying to talk American into buying FAA-only approved versions for domestic use only? It's hard to see how Boeing hasn't gotten itself in the position of being at a major competitive disadvantage by virtue of having compromised the FAA so severely as to have undercut safety.
kimyo , September 17, 2019 at 4:42 am
Boeing Foresees Return Of The 737 MAX In November – But Not Everywhere
Even if Boeing finds solutions that international regulators can finally accept, their implementation will take additional months. The AoA sensor and trim wheel issues will likely require hardware changes to the 600 or so existing MAX airplanes. The demand for simulator training will further delay the ungrounding of the plane. There are only some two dozen 737 MAX simulators in this world and thousands of pilots who will need to pass through them.
has Boeing developed a plan to correct the trim wheel issue on the 787max? i haven't seen a single statement from them on how they plan to fix this problem. is it possible they think they can get the faa to re-certify without addressing it?
marku52 , September 17, 2019 at 1:35 pm
Don't forget that the smaller trim wheels are in the NG as well. any change to fix the wheels ripples across more planes than just the Max
divadab , September 17, 2019 at 8:36 am
The self-inflicted wound caused by systematic greed and arrogance – corruption, in other words. Boeing is reaping the wages of taking 100% of their profits to support the stock price through stock buybacks and deliberately under-investing in their business. Their brains have been taken over by a parasitic financial system that profits by wrecking healthy businesses.
It's not only Boeing – the rot is general and it is terrible to see the destruction of American productive capacity by a parasitic finance sector.
Dirk77 , September 17, 2019 at 9:12 am
Shareholder Value is indeed the worst idea in the world. That Boeing's biggest stockholder, Vanguard, is unable to cleanup Boeing's operations makes perfect sense. I mean vanguards expertise is making money, not building anything. Those skills are completely different.
Noel Nospamington , September 17, 2019 at 10:41 am
Shareholder value does what it intended to do, which is to maximise stock value in the short term, even if it significantly cuts value in the long term.
By that measure allowing Boeing to take over the FAA and self-certify the 737-MAX was a big success, because of short term maximization of stock value that resulted. It is now someone else's problem regarding any long term harm.
Dirk77 , September 17, 2019 at 8:59 am
Having worked at Boeing and the FAA, this report is very welcome. One thing: federal hiring practices in a way lock out good people from working there. Very often the fed managing some project has only a tenuous grasp is what is going on.
But has the job bc they were hired in young and cheap, which is what agencies do with reduced budgets. That and job postings very often stating that they are open only to current feds says it all.
So deferring to the airline to "self-certify" would be a welcome relief to feds in many cases. At this point, I doubt the number of their "sharpest and best intended" engineers is very high.
If you want better oversight, then increase the number and quality of feds by making it easier to hire, and decrease the number of contractors.
Arthur Dent , September 17, 2019 at 10:54 am
I deal with federal and state regulators (not airplane) all the time. Very well meaning people, but in many cases are utterly unqualified to do the technical work. So it works well when they stick to the policy issues and stay out of the technical details.
However, we have Professional Engineers and other licensed professionals signing off on the engineering documents per state law. You can look at the design documents and the construction certification and there is a name and stamp of the responsible individual.
The licensing laws clearly state that the purpose of licensing is to hold public health and safety paramount. This is completely missing in the American industrial sector due to the industrial exemptions in the professional engineering licensing laws. Ultimately, there is nobody technically responsible for a plane or a car who has to certify that they are making the public safe and healthy.
Instead, the FAA and others do that. Federal agencies and the insurance institute test cars and give safety ratings. Lawyers sue companies for defects which also helps enforce safety.
Harry , September 17, 2019 at 1:44 pm
But how can individuals take responsibility? Their pockets arn't deep enough,.
XXYY , September 17, 2019 at 2:57 pm
One maxim we see illustrated here and elsewhere is this: Trust takes years to earn, but can be lost overnight.
Boeing management and the FAA, having lost the trust of most people in the world through their actions lately, seem to nevertheless think it will be a simple matter to return to the former status quo. It seems as likely, or perhaps more likely, that they will never be able to return to the former status quo. They have been revealed as poseurs and imposters, cheerfully risking (and sometimes losing) their customers' lives so they can buy back more stock.
This image will be (rightfully) hard for them to shake.
notabanker , September 17, 2019 at 9:24 pm
So people are going to quit their jobs rather than fly on Boeing planes? Joe and Marge Six-Pack are going to choose flights not based on what they can afford but based on what make of plane they are flying on? As if the airlines will even tell them in advance?
There are close to zero consequences to Boeing and FAA management. Click on the link to the Purdue Sacklers debacle. The biggest inconvenience will be paying the lawyers.
Tomonthebeach , September 17, 2019 at 11:29 am
FAA & Boeing: It's deja vu all over again.
From 1992 to 1999 I worked for the FAA running one of their labs in OKC. My role, among other things, was to provide data to the Administrator on employee attitudes, business practice changes, and policy impact on morale and safety. Back then, likely as now, it was a common complaint heard from FAA execs about the conflict of interest of having to be both an aviation safety regulatory agency and having to promote aviation. Congress seemed fine with that – apparently still is. There is FAA pork in nearly every Congressional district (think airports for example). Boeing is the latest example of how mission conflict is not serving the aviation industry or public safety. With its headquarters within walking distance of Capitol Hill, aviation lobbyists do not even get much exercise shuttling.
The 1996 Valuejet crash into the Florida swamps shows how far back the mission conflict problem has persisted. Valuejet was a startup airline that was touted as more profitable than all the others. It achieved that notoriety by flying through every FAA maintenance loophole they could find to cut maintenance costs. When FAA started clamping down, Senate Majority Leader Daschle scolded FAA for not being on the cutting edge of industry innovation. The message was clear – leave Valuejet alone. That was a hard message to ignore given that Daschle's wife Linda was serving as Deputy FAA Administrator (the #2 position) – a clear conflict of interest with the role of her spouse – a fact not lost on Administrator Hinson (the #1 position). Rather than use the disaster as an opportunity to revisit FAA mission conflict, Clinton tossed Administrator Hinson into the volcano of public outcry and put Daschle in charge. Nothing happened then, and it looks like Boeing might follow Valuejet into the aviation graveyard.
Kevin , September 17, 2019 at 12:34 pm
Mike , September 17, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Nothin' like regulatory capture. Along with financialized manufacturing, the cheap & profitable will outdo the costly careful every time. Few businesses are run today with the moral outlook of some early industrialists (not enough of them, but still present) who, through zany Protestant guilt, cared for their reputations enough to not make murderous product, knowing how the results would play both here and in Heaven. Today we have PR and government propaganda to smear the doubters, free the toxic, and let loose toxins.
From food to clothing, drugs to hospitals, self-propelled skateboards to aircraft, pesticides to pollution, even services as day care & education, it is time to call the minions of manufactured madness to account. Dare we say "Free government from Murder Inc."?
VietnamVet , September 17, 2019 at 3:57 pm
This is an excellent summary of the untenable situation that Boeing and the Federal Government have gotten themselves into. In their rush to get richer the Elite ignored the fact that monopolies and regulatory capture are always dangerously corrupt. This is not an isolated case. FDA allows importation of uninspected stock pharmaceutical chemicals from China. Insulin is unaffordable for the lower classes. Diseases are spreading through homeless encampments. EPA approved new uses of environmentally toxic nicotinoid insecticide, sulfoxaflor. DOD sold hundreds of billions of dollars of armaments to Saudi Arabia that were useless to protect the oil supply.
The Powers-that-be thought that they would be a hegemon forever. But, Joe Biden's green light for the Ukraine Army's attack against breakaway Donbass region on Russia's border restarted the Cold War allying Russia with China and Iran. This is a multi-polar world again. Brexit and Donald Trump's Presidency are the Empire's death throes.
RBHoughton , September 17, 2019 at 8:40 pm
NC readers know what the problem is as two comments above indicate clearly. Isn't the FAA ashamed to keep conniving with the money and permitting dangerous planes to fly?
Boeing just got a WTO ruling against Airbus. It seems that one rogue produces others. Time to clean the stable and remove the money addiction from safety regulation
The Rev Kev , September 17, 2019 at 11:26 pm
I think that I can see an interesting situation developing next year. So people will be boarding a plane, say with Southwest Airlines, when they will hear the following announcement over the speakers-
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. On behalf of myself and the entire crew, welcome aboard Southwest Airlines flight WN 861, non-stop service from Houston to New York. Our flight time will be of 4 hours and 30 minutes. We will be flying at an altitude of 35,000 feet at a ground speed of approximately 590 miles per hour.
We are pleased to announce that you have now boarded the first Boeing 737 MAX that has been cleared to once again fly by the FAA as being completely safe. For those passengers flying on to any other country, we regret to announce that you will have to change planes at New York as no other country in the world has cleared this plane as being safe to fly in their airspace and insurance companies there are unwilling to issue insurance cover for them in any case.
So please sit back and enjoy your trip with us. Cabin Crew, please bolt the cabin doors and prepare for gate departure."
Arizona Slim , September 18, 2019 at 6:32 am
And then there's this -- Southwest is rethinking its 737 strategy:
Sep 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Joetv , Sep 18 2019 17:14 utc | 4Langewiesche describes an earlier Lion Air flight that also experienced an MCAS failure but was by chance saved:Immediately after liftoff, the captain's airspeed indication failed, airspeed-disagreement and altitude-disagreement warnings appeared on his flight display and his stick shaker began to rattle the controls in warning of an imminent stall.
The Bali captain was enough of an airman to realize that he was dealing with an information failure only -- not an actual stall. No direct mention has been made of this, but he must have immediately identified the replacement angle-of-attack vane on his side as the likely culprit.
Wrong. How would the pilot know that? The pilot noticed intermitted automatic down trim. That failure mode was not in the flight manuals and pilot had no way to attribute it to an AoA sensor. The claim is also contradicted by the pilot's maintenance log entry:After pulling up to the gate in Jakarta, the Bali captain informed a company mechanic about "the aircraft problem" and in the maintenance log noted only three anomalies -- the captain's airspeed and altitude indication errors and the illumination of a warning light related to a system known as Feel Differential Pressure. That was it. Apparently the captain noted nothing about the failure of the newly installed angle-of-attack sensor , or the activation of the stick shaker, or the runaway trim, or the current position of the trim cutout switches. If true, it was hard to conclude anything other than that this was severe and grotesque negligence.
The captain noted nothing about the AoA sensor because he did not know that it failed.
The captian did mention a trim problem but he had not experienced a runaway trim. A classic runaway trim is continuously. An MCAS intervention like the captain experienced discontinues after 9 seconds. But the pilots on that flight did not even know that MCAS existed. The captain reported all the basic symptoms he experienced during that flight. A runaway was not one of them.
Langewiesche fails to mention, probably intentionally, the captain's additional entry in the maintenance log. The captain wrote :"Airspeed unreliable and ALT disagree shown after takeoff, STS also running to the wrong direction ...".
STS, the Speed Trim System, moves the stabilizer trim. It does that all the time but discontinuously during every normal flight. The pilot correctly described the symptoms of the incident as he perceived them. Those were not the symptoms of a continuously runaway stabilizer. But the pilot knew, and documented, that he experienced an intermitted trim problem. It was the mechanics responsibility to analyze the underlying error and to correct the system which is exactly what he did.
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. Furthermore, when you have a maintenance log that shows the replacement of an angle-of-attack sensor two days before and then you have an associated stick shaker rattling away while the other stick shaker remains quiet, you do not need an idiot light to tell you what is going on. At any rate, the recognition of an angle-of-attack disagreement -- however pilots do or do not come to it -- has no bearing on this accident, so we will move on.
An AoA sensor failure and a following MCAS incident will cause all of the following: an unexpected autopilot shutdown, an airspeed warning, an attitude disagree warning, a stall warning and, after MCAS intervenes, also an over-speed warning. The control column rattles, a loud clacker goes off, several lights blink or go red, several flight instruments suddenly show crazy values. All this in a critical flight phase immediately after the start when the workload is already high.
It is this multitude of warnings, which each can have multiple causes, that startle a pilot and make it impossible to diagnose and correct within the 10 seconds that MCAS runs. To claim that "MCAS is easy to counter" is a gross misjudgment of a pilot's workload in such a critical situation.
After blaming the pilots Langewiesche bashes the foreign air safety regulators which are now investigating the MAX accidents:According to sources familiar with both investigations, Boeing and the N.T.S.B. have been largely excluded and denied access to such basic evidence as the complete flight-data recordings and the audio from the cockpit.
It is a forlorn hope, but you might wish that investigators like those in Indonesia and Ethiopia would someday have the self-confidence to pursue full and transparent investigations and release all the raw data associated with the accidents.
I am not aware of an accident in the U.S. where the FAA investigators released "complete flight-data recordings and the audio from the cockpit" to foreign entities that were suspected to have caused the incident. Nor will the FAA "release all the raw data" associated with an accident. Certainly not before an investigation is finished.
Boeing screwed up by designing and installing a faulty systems that was unsafe. It did not even tell the pilots that MCAS existed. It still insists that the system's failure should not be trained in simulator type training. Boeing's failure and the FAA's negligence, not the pilots, caused two major accidents.
Nearly a year after the first incident Boeing has still not presented a solution that the FAA would accept. Meanwhile more safety critical issues on the 737 MAX were found for which Boeing has still not provided any acceptable solution.
But to Langewiesche this anyway all irrelevant. He closes his piece out with more "blame the pilots" whitewash of "poor Boeing":The 737 Max remains grounded under impossibly close scrutiny, and any suggestion that this might be an overreaction, or that ulterior motives might be at play, or that the Indonesian and Ethiopian investigations might be inadequate, is dismissed summarily. To top it off, while the technical fixes to the MCAS have been accomplished, other barely related imperfections have been discovered and added to the airplane's woes. All signs are that the reintroduction of the 737 Max will be exceedingly difficult because of political and bureaucratic obstacles that are formidable and widespread. Who in a position of authority will say to the public that the airplane is safe?
I would if I were in such a position. What we had in the two downed airplanes was a textbook failure of airmanship . In broad daylight, these pilots couldn't decipher a variant of a simple runaway trim, and they ended up flying too fast at low altitude, neglecting to throttle back and leading their passengers over an aerodynamic edge into oblivion. They were the deciding factor here -- not the MCAS, not the Max.
One wonders how much Boeing paid the author to assemble his screed.
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:
- Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 12 2019
- Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight - Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 17 2019
- Regulators Knew Of 737 MAX Trim Problems - Certification Demanded Training That Boeing Failed To Deliver - March 29 2019
- Ethiopian Airline Crash - Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed - April 9 2019
- Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs - May 25 2019
- Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer - June 27 2019
- EASA Tells Boeing To Fix 5 Major 737 MAX Issues - July 7 2019
- The New Delay Of Boeing's 737 MAX Return Will Not Be The Last One - July 15 2019
- 737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified - July 28 2019
- 737 MAX - Boeing Insults International Safety Regulators As New Problems Cause Longer Grounding - September 3 2019
- Boeing Foresees Return Of The 737 MAX In November - But Not Everywhere - September 12 2019
Does the author of the NYT Magazine 'hit' piece have a conscience? He reminds me of every politician that voted to go to war in Iraq. Casualties? Oh! You mean collateral damage? Millions! That's acceptable. No problem.
foolisholdman , Sep 18 2019 17:14 utc | 5William Herschel , Sep 18 2019 17:18 utc | 614,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX Failure
The New York Times
No doubt, this WAS intended as a whitewash of Boeing, but having read the 14,000 words, I don't think it qualifies as more than a somewhat greywash. It is true he blames the pilots for mishandling a situation that could, perhaps, have been better handled, but Boeing still comes out of it pretty badly and so does the NTSB. The other thing I took away from the article is that Airbus planes are, in principle, & by design, more failsafe/idiot-proof.Key words: New York Times Magazine. I think when your body is for sale you are called a whore. Trump's almost hysterical bashing of the NYT is enough to make anyone like the paper, but at its core it is a mouthpiece for the military industrial complex. Cf. Judith Miller.BM , Sep 18 2019 17:23 utc | 7The New York Times Magazine just published a 14,000 words piecefoolisholdman , Sep 18 2019 17:23 utc | 8
An ill-disguised attempt to prepare the ground for premature approval for the 737max. It won't succeed - impossible. Opposition will come from too many directions. The blowback from this article will make Boeing regret it very soon, I am quite sure.Come to think about it: (apart from the MCAS) what sort of crap design is it, if an absolutely vital control, which the elevator is, can become impossibly stiff under just those conditions where you absolutely have to be able to move it quickly?A.L. , Sep 18 2019 17:27 utc | 9This NYT article is great.jayc , Sep 18 2019 17:38 utc | 10
It will only highlight the hubris of "my sh1t doesn't stink" mentality of the American elite and increase the resolve of other civil aviation authorities with a backbone (or in ascendancy) to put Boeing through the wringer.
For the longest time FAA was the gold standard and years of "Air Crash Investigation" TV shows solidified its place but has been taken for granted. Unitl now if it's good enough for the FAA it's good enough for all.
That reputation has now been irreparably damaged over this sh1tshow. I can't help but think this NYT article is only meant for domestic sheeple or stock brokers' consumption as anyone who is going to have anything technical to do with this investigation is going to see right through this load literal diarroeh.
I wouldn't be surprised if some insider wants to offload some stock and planted this story ahead of some 737MAX return-to-service timetable announcement to get an uplift. Someone needs to track the SEC forms 3 4 and 5. But there are also many ways to skirt insider reporting requirements. As usual, rules are only meant for the rest of us.An appalling indifference to life/lives has been a signature feature of the American experience.psychohistorian , Sep 18 2019 17:40 utc | 11Thanks for the ongoing reporting of this debacle b....you are saving peoples livesb , Sep 18 2019 17:46 utc | 14
@ A.L who wrote
I wouldn't be surprised if some insider wants to offload some stock and planted this story ahead of some 737MAX return-to-service timetable announcement to get an uplift. Someone needs to track the SEC forms 3 4 and 5. But there are also many ways to skirt insider reporting requirements. As usual, rules are only meant for the rest of us.
I agree but would pluralize your "insider" to "insiders". This SOP gut and run financialization strategy is just like we are seeing with Purdue Pharma that just filed bankruptcy because their opioids have killed so many....the owners will never see jail time and their profits are protected by the God of Mammon legal system.
Hopefully the WWIII we are engaged in about public/private finance will put an end to this perfidy by the God of Mammon/private finance cult of the Western form of social organization.Peter Lemme, the satcom guru , was once an engineer at Boeing. He testified over technical MAX issue before Congress and wrote lot of technical details about it. He retweeted the NYT Mag piece with this comment :Masher1 , Sep 18 2019 17:49 utc | 15Peter Lemme @Satcom_Guru
Blame the pilots.
Blame the training.
Blame the airline standards.
Imply rampant corruption at all levels.
Claim Airbus flight envelope protection is superior to Boeing.
Fumble the technical details.
Stack the quotes with lots of hearsay to drive the theme.
Ignore everything elseThe CRIMINALITY of the FAA will have to be SERIOUSLY dealt with if air travel is going to survive.Peter C , Sep 18 2019 18:28 utc | 18@ jayc #10Jose , Sep 18 2019 19:30 utc | 26
Indeed, I was put in mind of the Ford Pinto affair where internal documents highlighted the risk of filling the passenger space with burning petrol in the event of a rear end crash involving that car and recommended repositioning the fuel tank. It was decided on the basis of cost which was an additional $11 per car and the remote likelihood of there being any survivors to sue not to do anything. Unfortunately for them a thirteen year old Richard Grimshaw did survive such an event. The jury was outraged enough to add $125,000,000 in punitive damages to the settlement, not unexpectedly later reduced to $3.5,000,000.
https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.htmlA former Boeing official who was subpoeaned to testify about his role in the development of the 737 Max has refused to provide documents sought by federal prosecutors, according to the Seattle Times, citing his Fifth Amendment right against forcible self-incrimination.David G , Sep 18 2019 19:41 utc | 30
Mark Forkner who was Boeing's chief technical pilot on the 737 Max project during the development of the plane, was responding to a grand jury subpoena. The US Justice Department is investigating two fatal crashes of the Boeing jet, and is looking into the design and certification of the plane, according to a person familiar with the matter cited by the Seattle Times.
The Fifth Amendment provides a legal right that can be invoked by a person in order to avoid testifying under oath. Because the amendment is used to avoid being put in a situation where one would have to testify about something that would be self-incriminating, it can sometimes be seen by outsiders as an implicit admission of guilt, although that is not always the case.
It is less common to invoke the Fifth to resist a subpoena for documents or evidence. According to legal experts, its use by Forkner could simply suggest a legal manuever between Boeing's attorneys and prosecutors.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/subpoenaed-boeing-documents-fifth-amendment-2019-9Langewiesche wrote an article for Vanity Fair magazine back in 2014 about the loss of Air France 447 that also was themed on whether today's lousy pilots just aren't good enough for today's magnificent airliners.A.L. , Sep 18 2019 19:56 utc | 31
I thought, and still think, it was an excellent (and disturbing) article, but possibly Langewiesche is so enamored of that theme, it is blinding him to Boeing's numerous screwups in designing the Max.@30 David Gvk , Sep 18 2019 20:31 utc | 37
perhaps, just like proponents of AI and self driving cars. They just love the technology, financially and emotionally invested in it so much they can't see the forest from the trees.
I like technology, I studied engineering. But the myopic drive to profitability and naivety to unintended consequences are pushing these tech out into the world before they are ready.
engineering used to be a discipline with ethics and responsibilities... But now anybody who could write two lines of code can call themselves a software engineer....If the 737 MAX isn't ungrounded until December 2019, expect Airbus to be sanctioned by the USG:Jay , Sep 18 2019 21:25 utc | 43
- EU Could Face Billions in Fresh US Tariffs After WTO Airbus Ruling - Report
- Airbus Warns Trump His EU Tariff War Could Backfire Against US Economy
My opinion: EASA will fold and the 737 MAX will be ungrounded in Europe by January 2020. China, however, is a completely different beast: it is socialist and have created, in 2015, its first domestically produced passenger jet .Consider the "reporter's" CV: Vanity Fair is largely navel gazing by the upper middle class and the very well off. And the Atlantic hasn't published anything challenging in more than 30 years--and it's worsened over the last 20.Delta Gee Whiz , Sep 18 2019 21:43 utc | 44
Of course this guy was the goto airplane "reporter" for the NYT Mag.
And yes, it's laughable that the NY Times Mag published this. As if an error reading in one sensor sending an automobile off a cliff, or under a truck in the case of Tesla, would be acceptable in any instance.What does it really matter?" Boeing is just a symptom of the Terminal Illness of the US of A. There are dozens and dozens maybe hundreds and hundreds more. The last 30 years of my life and I am going to be 67 soon I have personally witnessed the destruction of science and technology in the US. What was a great accomplishment for the Nation as a whole and despite the fact that most people had no involvement in or knowledge of what was accomplished and what a great system had been created, has been destroyed by the same sick Fucks that have destroyed the American Middle Class and American Economy and American Culture. Just the land of the greedy pig and the ass licking dumb ass inbred CEO and CEO wannabees... Its not easy to destroy an entire culture but they have done it and are proud of it too...lysias , Sep 18 2019 21:48 utc | 45The NYT is the newspaper for the Democratic side of the Wall Street elite .Parisian Guy , Sep 18 2019 22:13 utc | 47@ vk | Sep 18 2019 20:31 utc | 37Don Bacon , Sep 18 2019 22:32 utc | 49
Yes, the tariff against Airbus is likely a tool for pressuring the European certification authority. Nevertheless my prediction is opposite to yours:
For any foreign certification authority, it is quite risky to recertify the 737MAX. It is politically doable only if it can claim that the European authority did it also. Therefore, if Europe does not fold but counter-attacks, on one hand Airbus may lose the American market, but on the other hand it may gain kind of a monopoly for most of the remaining global market.There's a pattern to this blame game. In this 2014 Vanity Fair article The Human Factor Langewiesche devotes hundreds of words, more than I ever wanted to know (scroll down), about pilots and how they have evolved, as automation (artificial intelligence) has taken over the cockpits. The 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447 killed 228 people and the pilots "were hideously incompetent" Langewiesche wrote in this article, which also includes some sociological factors.james , Sep 18 2019 22:33 utc | 50@41 jay... that is true, but this is one of the main fronts that the private banks used to secure there own position - thru gse's... everyone knew it was happening and the authorities never cracked down on any of it... thus the resultant stock price... they didn't come shooting back like citicorp and etc. etc.. there is a reason for that.. the public was on the hook for these gse's.. the taxpayer gets all the downside and none of the upside.. they will circle the wagons over boeing as well... guaranteed...Fixer , Sep 18 2019 22:35 utc | 51Focussing on Boeing is fine but misses the point.vk , Sep 18 2019 22:52 utc | 52
Air travel and the essentially indistinguishable Military Industrial Complex are the most heavily subsidized 'industries' in existence. They would not and could not function without government largesse.
The US's ability to financially sustain this business on a global scale is faltering and will likely collapse along with US$ fiat. Others in Europe and China might pick up some of the slack but the era of $700 all inclusive vacations is slowly coming to an end. All things 'middle' are now deemed unsustainable.
Others have their eyes on the money pie, including for pensions and basic social services. Google for example, which wants to keep extending it's massively expensive infrastructure for spying plus build a centrally controlled system of self driving sardine tins, for which Boeing is an important competitor, moneywise and especially in terms of the technical talent required to both build and sustain it.
The mass transport of people via large aircraft is coming to an end. So too is mass movement in privately owned cars. Globalists have private jets for themselves and could care less about how peons get around, except insofar as everyone can be perfectly controlled. Toll roads and possibly even digitally controlled sidewalks/ gates will soon price convenient mobility, and also freedom of movement, completely out of reach for a rapidly dissapearing middle class.
All is by design. The Globularchs are making a prison planet and feudal technocracy for all those who lack sufficient social status. The takedown of Boeing is part of a process by which the rest of us are irrevocably enslaved. First they build a problem in the public mind via media then later they offer their solutions. A thousand year feudal Reich is what they have planned for us and unless we learn to distinguish between the easily fixable problems faced by Boeing or GM and the phoney plotlines fostered by Globalists we will have no one to blame when those below the Ubermenchen class can't travel more than 5 kilometers from their domiciles for the entirety of their lives.@ Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 18 2019 22:13 utc | 47Carey , Sep 18 2019 23:04 utc | 53
You assume 1) the European people is enlightened and 2) Europe is not a capitalist economy.
Of course that, if a trade war involving Airbus and Boeing begin, the whole European MSM will quickly mold the European public opinion so that the European people begin to defend Airbus as if it was defending its own existence.
However, there's the capitalist flank the USA can exploit over Europe. That is, it can unground the 737 MAX in the American market and slap tariffs and fines on Airbus in order to (try to) cripple its market share. Europe is not China, and, as the USA, depends on infinite and indefinite economic growth to survive: even four years is enough to bend European morale in this case, because there would be upper middle class jobs lost in the Peninsula.
Europe is also not the USA: it built a capitalist model that essentially depends on its image and glamour to survive. Its legitimacy essentially rests on the higher life quality of its peoples vis-a-vis the rest of the world (e.g. the propagandization of Scandinavia). If those middle/upper middle class jobs begin to be axed, there will be structural trouble for the European social contract.The author of the NYT piece has written this kind ofJen , Sep 18 2019 23:18 utc | 55
muddying-the-waters stuff before:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/03/the-lessons-of-valujet-592/306534/I guess it would be fair to say that William Langewiesche's life experience and background as a pilot and then a writer specialising in aviation stories about the interface of aviation technology and human limitations (physical and psychological) blinds him to the fact that it's not so much human frailty in the two related cases of the Lion Air and the Ethiopian Airlines crashes, as it is the current culture of Boeing itself which prioritises profit over engineering, intentional redundancy built into technology (two Angle of Attack sensors linked to the MCAS would be better than just one, Boeing 737 MAX jets have two AoA sensors but Airbus jets have three AoA sensors, the third in the tail of the jet) and maintaining consistency in quality and standards.Pauli , Sep 18 2019 23:20 utc | 56
Langewiesche can waffle all he likes about the minutiae of what the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flight crews should have done or not done but all that wordiness counts for nothing if he had been given information so incomplete and biased in favour in Boeing, that it is nothing more than a pack of lies and he ends up writing propaganda.The official air crash investigation reports might be coming out soon.div> @ 33 FAA regulations prohibit flying with a device that has had a battery recall from the manufactuer, which appliesto a limited set of 15" MacBook Pros. In a CYA move some airlines limit all MacBooks.
In the immediate aftermath of the crashes it looked like the pilots in both crashes had not responded ideally. Some of their actions, even in teh Eithiopian's flight did not make sense.
It was assumed this was due to pilot error,lack of training, foriegn pilots etc.
I have seen later reports that the reason for the pilots seeming mistakes is going to be put entirely down to malfunctioning sensors and incorrect information and warnings from the flight control computer.
It seems likely the pilots in both crashes will be completely exonerated of any blame . Their actions will be attributed to the malfunctioning sensors and warnings they were receiving.
In both crashes the pilots were overloaded with warnings, and nome of them were erroneous.
In other words, blame in both crashes is going to end up 1000% on Boeing itself. Even in the Lion Air flight.
Due to the MCAS
And their crappy 30 year old Flight Control Computer that could not produce correct information in an emergency due to a highly predictable, even inevitable fault it had no ability to error correct for.
This latter point is what I believe Boeing is trying to hide with its muddying the waters exercise here.
This is absolutely crucial to the 737's future. The MCAS fix is relatively straight forward. Have the ability to turn it off and hand complete control back to the pilots. And prove the 737 is safe to fly with MCAS switched off (which I believe is the case).
As far as most people are concerned if MCAS is safe then the plane is safe. (and the manual trim wheels are usuablez
But I belive the EASA, and the accident investigators have concluded the 737's Flight Control Computer can't be trusted. This is a giant can of worms. Much bigger than even MCAS itself. Re-writing Flight Control Computers will take years.
And remember there are two previous 737 crashes, prior to the MAX, that had somewhat similar profiles to their crashes, that were controversially attributed to pilot error. What if they were also due to faulty information from the 737 Flight Control Computers.
Ironically Boeing has put itself in this position. By aggressively accusing pilot error they have made pilot behaviour a headline factor in these crashes. But if pilot behaviour was due to a faulty Flight Control Computer then Boeing is doubly at fault here
Posted by: Pyrrho , Sep 18 2019 23:30 utc | 57@ 33 FAA regulations prohibit flying with a device that has had a battery recall from the manufactuer, which appliesto a limited set of 15" MacBook Pros. In a CYA move some airlines limit all MacBooks.Pyrrho , Sep 18 2019 23:30 utc | 57 David G , Sep 18 2019 23:43 utc | 58
Posted by: Pyrrho | Sep 18 2019 23:30 utc | 57@49 Don Bacon:VietnamVet , Sep 19 2019 0:27 utc | 59
But was Langewiesche wrong about AF447?
All that happened on that plane mechanically was a brief loss of valid airspeed indication, which corrected itself after a few seconds. That was it: nothing else wrong with that aircraft, cruising safely at its full altitude.
From that insignificant glitch, the pilots (primarily the copilot, with the captain failing to right the situation) managed to fly their airliner into the ocean, through pure panic, incompetence, and confusion.
Langewiesche may have let his confirmation bias lead him to back a loser in the Max, and it's possible he isn't up to mastering the myriad technical details here (the AF447 story is technically straightforward), but the AF447 story makes a disturbingly strong case that a well designed modern airliner can be a lot more trustworthy than the crew flying it.David G @ 58WinniPuuh , Sep 19 2019 1:21 utc | 60
Like life, the AF447 crash was more complicated. One of the three pilots imputed the wrong data into the flight radar system. So the plane flew into an Atlantic equatorial thunderstorm which it normally would have avoided. The chief pilot was resting in the back. The rookie co-pilot was flying. The speed indicator iced over in the storm, the auto-pilot disengaged dumping control to the rookie. Airbus flight control sidesticks are not interconnected. The 2nd officer did not know that the rookie had panicked in the storm and was pulling back on his stick. The senior pilot had time to make it back to the cockpit but only at the last seconds did he and the second officer realize that the plane at stalled and would not recover.
The 737 Max pilots didn't have a chance. Four experienced pilots with knowledge of MACS system in the simulators had four seconds to do the right thing. One failed. In both crashes the pilots were fighting to save their lives.
The question is: Given more time, with no misleading warnings, knowledge, and simulator training to acquire muscle memory, can regular airline pilots recover control in case of sensor failure and/or with the changed flight characteristics of the Max.
Monopolies ignore designing human computer interfaces that work and that actually increase safety. That costs big bucks.Very easy solution, tell FAA to unground all the 737MAX and let them fly in the US. You could lease the other 737MAX from all around the world, for probably very interesting conditions. So Boeing also can deliver new planes and anything will be fine again.Jay , Sep 19 2019 1:43 utc | 61
I wish GOOD LUCK , the US-Passengers may will need it.
PS: Cancel the code-sharing to avoid problems with other airlines. Let them fly! and enjoy your Popcorn.james:
Right, banks like Deutche Bank and Citi sure used the fact that Fannie and Freddie were buying this crap, the securities, to say "see the sort of US government backed entities are okay with it".
However the other insurance big banks used was credit default swaps, AKA fake insurance. Buy that fake "policy" on a "bond" made up of ill defined garbage, and you then can turn around and sell more of that ill defined garbage.
(Of course, in the real world liability insurance doesn't work that way, buy real insurance, then burn down your neighbor's house, never get liability insurance again.)
And it's largely AIG (backed by Goldman Sachs) that sold those fake "bond" insurance bets.
Unlike ibanks, which can hide crap, definitely still are, it's a bit hard to hide the fact that a major product line is spectacularly crashing to the ground and killing people.
Microsoft tried to pretend that its major product line, Windows, didn't have disastrous crashes for at least 10 years. These lies have a great deal to do with the revival of Apple and the emergence of Google and Android.
There was even a major flaw in the Sept 2019 Patch Tuesday release for Windows 7--the OS became unusable. However I don't think Microsoft is going anywhere.
Sep 12, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
The Boeing 737 MAX was expected to be flying again in October. Yesterday Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg pushed that date to November :Boeing chairman and chief executive Dennis Muilenburg on Wednesday reiterated his projection that, despite concerns publicly expressed by Europe's air safety regulator, the 737 MAX should begin to return to service around November.
This is unlikely to be the last change of the date. Muilenburg had additional bad news:However, he conceded that lack of alignment among international regulatory bodies could mean that the grounded jet may first resume flying in the United States, with other major countries following later.
"We're making good, solid progress on a return to service," Muilenburg said, speaking at a Morgan Stanley investor conference in Laguna Beach, Calif. He later added that " a phased ungrounding of the airplane among regulators around the world is a possibility."
The "phased ungrounding" means that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration would certify the plane as being safe while other regulators would still not do so. U.S. passengers would be asked to fly on a plane that the rest of the world would still consider too unsafe to fly. 737 MAX flights from the U.S. to other countries would still be grounded as would the by far largest part of the total fleet in Europe and China.
It is doubtful that insurance providers, U.S. airlines, their passengers and their pilots would welcome such a "phased" move. It is an extremely risky behavior. Any accident during that time, no matter for what reason, would bring the affected airline, Boeing and the FAA into even deeper trouble.
It is likely that Boeing and the FAA would like to blame the foreign regulators for making late or unreasonable demands. But the history of the two deadly 737 MAX accidents and the development since prove that only Boeing and the FAA are to blame for this.
The Muilenburg statement followed a September 3 presentation (pdf) by the chief of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Patrick Ky for the European parliament. It documents how EASA early on told the FAA and Boeing what it would do before allowing the plane back into the air.
On April 1 EASA set 4 conditions:
- Design changes proposed by Boeing are EASA approved ( no delegation to FAA )
- Additional and broader independent design review has been satisfactorily completed by EASA
- Accidents of JT610 and ET302 are deemed sufficiently understood
- B737 MAX flight crews have been adequately trained
The most important statement in the above is that EASA will not rely on the FAA's judgment of the 737 MAX flight safety but make its own one. This is the consequence of the FAA's delegation of certification authority to Boeing and its very late grounding of the plane.
Ky openly blamed the FAA for giving too much authority to Boeing:"Yes, there was a problem in this notion of delegation by the FAA of the MCAS safety assessment to Boeing," Ky told the EU Parliament committee.
"This would not happen in our system," he insisted. "Everything which is safety-critical, everything which is innovative has to be seen by us and not delegated."
EASA tasked 20 of its experts, test pilots and engineers with the review of the 737 MAX. They evaluated 70 test points and in June and July performed simulator test flights. Significant technical issues were found and communicated to Boeing in early July . Solving these issues is a condition for the plane's re-certification :
- Lack of exhaustive monitoring of the system failures resulting in a stabiliser runaway
- Too high forces needed to move the manual trim wheel in case of a stabiliser runaway
- Too late disconnection of autopilot near stall speed (in specific conditions)
- Too high crew workload and risk of crew confusion in some failure cases, especially Angle of Attack single failure at take-off
Boeing was expected to provide solutions for each of these issues.
But in a August 2019 meeting of international regulators Boeing failed to present them:Friction between Boeing Co. and international air-safety authorities threatens a new delay in bringing the grounded 737 MAX fleet back into service, according to government and pilot union officials briefed on the matter.
The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a Boeing briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil and elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control computers.
As a consequence of Boeing's unwillingness EASA went public with its demands by putting them into the above presentation. Even under political pressure there is no way EASA can now go back on them.
EASA will have its own pilots doing the certification flights on the revamped 737 MAX. They will test it with the modified MCAS as well as without it. They will also test the other points EASA listed.
The flight safety regulators do not provide technical solutions for the problems they find. They only tell Boeing to provide and implement designs that satisfies a regulator's demands. If any of the points above is not satisfactory solved EASA will not allow the 737 MAX to fly in Europe. Other regulators like the Chinese CAAC will likely follow EASA on the issue but may also add additional points. Some 80% of Boeing's single aisle planes are sold into foreign markets. These will not be allowed to fly until the EASA's and others' demands are satisfied.
Boeing has so far provided a solution for the Flight Control Computer problems. It has yet to improve the confusing alarms, crew procedures and the associated training. Boeing does not want mandatory simulator training for new 737 MAX pilots and the FAA seems to agree with it on that point. But Canada already said that it will demand such training and EASA and others are likely to do the same. Boeing has given no appropriate response for the Angle of Attack integrity issues. EASA wants a third AoA sensor or an equivalent technical solution. The manual trim wheel problem , which also applies to the older 737 NG type, is also still an open issue.
Muilenberg does not seem to understand (pdf) that Boeing has to do more about these issues than 'answer questions':Rajeev Lalwani Analyst, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLCQ
... we've all seen the added sensor chatter. So we'd love for you to clarify what is and isn't accurate.
Dennis A. Muilenburg Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Boeing Co
[...] we're going to respect individual questions from different regulators and EASA has brought up some questions and that we're working our way through. I wouldn't see those as divisive. I just think those are questions that we need to answer as part of the process. And questions around things like angle of attack, system design. Recognize that our architecture on Boeing airplanes is different than Airbus airplanes. And that's always been a topic of discussion; that doesn't necessarily mean hardware changes. In some cases, those questions can be answered with simulation work or software updates or process updates. So there's no specificity on answers. They're just question areas that we work our way through as part of the normal certification process. So I would describe it that way. I think we've got to pay attention to it, lot of work to do to answer questions. But everyone's motivated to work together here and it creates timeline uncertainty.
The lack of AoA sensor redundancy and the blocked manual trim wheel need technical solutions. "Answering questions" will not provide those. I for one can not see that EASA or CAAC will let Boeing get away with this.
Muilenburg's admission that the plane is not ready for international certification is devastating news for the company even as he tried to sell its as progress. The FAA might lift the grounding of the plane under political pressure but other regulators will not follow through. The public uproar that will be caused by that will make it nearly impossible to sell tickets for 737 MAX flights.
Even if Boeing finds solutions that international regulators can finally accept, their implementation will take additional months. The AoA sensor and trim wheel issues will likely require hardware changes to the 600 or so existing MAX airplanes. The demand for simulator training will further delay the ungrounding of the plane. There are only some two dozen 737 MAX simulators in this world and thousands of pilots who will need to pass through them.
These technical and organizational problems have all been known for several months. EASA and others pointed them out early and often. But Boeing is still dragging its feet instead of solving them. The delays caused by this unreasonable behavior risk the company's sales, reputation and maybe even its existence.
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:
- Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 12 2019
- Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight - Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 17 2019
- Regulators Knew Of 737 MAX Trim Problems - Certification Demanded Training That Boeing Failed To Deliver - March 29 2019
- Ethiopian Airline Crash - Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed - April 9 2019
- Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs - May 25 2019
- Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer - June 27 2019
- EASA Tells Boeing To Fix 5 Major 737 MAX Issues - July 7 2019
- The New Delay Of Boeing's 737 MAX Return Will Not Be The Last One - July 15 2019
- 737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified - July 28 2019
- 737 MAX - Boeing Insults International Safety Regulators As New Problems Cause Longer Grounding - September 3 2019
Posted by b on September 12, 2019 at 14:51 UTC | Permalink
BM , Sep 12 2019 15:40 utc | 1Muilenburg lives in cloud cockoo land! This is definitive proof that he urgently needs to be sacked. To say he is incompetent would be a gross understatement - he is off the scale. If investors are satisfied with answers like this, they fully deserve to lose their investment.BM , Sep 12 2019 15:45 utc | 2
The foreign regulators walked out because Boeing wasn't willing to provide answers to questions - and yet Muilenburg thinks Boeing is ready to fly?
Basically what he is saying is that Boeing can solve all the 737MAX problems by bullshitting. Nothing else required. Is anybody going to agree with that? Anybody? Anybody? Well, anybody's cat then?
If Boeing makes no serious effort to satify the EASA requirements, there is absolutely zero chance it will fly even in the US, and even with absolute maximum pressure from the US government to restart flying - because other parties like pilots union etc will block it.This situation is an absolutely brilliant comment on the problems of the financialisation of Boeing. Nobody could have asked for a clearer statement than this.Greg , Sep 12 2019 16:00 utc | 3
Boeing has gone into self-destruct mode.Boeing is a classic example of what happens when you let the bean counters (a.k.a. "financiers") who know nothing about the engineering and manufacturing processes within a company take over that company. Workers get laid off, engineering and manufacturing is outsourced, regulations are disregarded, but hey, PROFITS GO UP, stock price goes up, share buybacks, multi-million dollar bonuses for the bean counters running the company!! It's all good, right? Well, er no... Safety goes out the window and planes fly themselves into the ground.Jackrabbit , Sep 12 2019 16:13 utc | 4bMasher1 , Sep 12 2019 16:15 utc | 5
Your reporting on the 737MAX has just been awesome.They say that if you were to go back in time with an elephant gun, and shoot a dinosaur right thru the heart, It would take some time for the head to get the messages it was dead....div> Americans will be proud to give their lives in order to protect corporate bonuses at Boeing.
Same with Boeing.... It's dead.... It just has not fallen down dead yet...
Boeing HAD a very small window to avoid self inflicted death... That window closed.
Smart money is on a big fall for them.
Posted by: BraveNewWorld , Sep 12 2019 16:22 utc | 6Americans will be proud to give their lives in order to protect corporate bonuses at Boeing.psychohistorian , Sep 12 2019 16:25 utc | 7
Posted by: BraveNewWorld | Sep 12 2019 16:22 utc | 6Thanks again b for your ongoing coverage of the financialization death of Boeingdh , Sep 12 2019 16:43 utc | 8
@ Masher1 # 5 who wrote
Smart money is on a big fall for them.
The current role for Muilenburg is to stall long enough so that the Smart Money folks can offload their ownership before the crash comes. The gut and run strategy is SOP for the financialization folk, ask Mitt Romney.If the FAA certifies the planes American Airlines and United will be the first to put them back in service.karlof1 , Sep 12 2019 16:47 utc | 9
An update from American....
http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2019/The-Latest-Information-About-737-MAX-Operations/default.aspxBoeing's failures go beyond the 737MAX and include a recently cancelled $6+Billion contract to supply vital components to the USAF's hypersonic missile program, which set it back a few more years. This report's about the KC-46 continuing problems:Sunny Runny Burger , Sep 12 2019 16:53 utc | 10
"Boeing's troubled KC-46 Pegasus refueler and transport plane may have yet another design flaw. The Pentagon barred it from flying passengers and cargo after locks on one aircraft opened on their own."
The plane wasn't grounded but is prohibited from being used as a transport. The article also reviews more of its problems. Boeing's 777 also has issues and here we see early signs of Boeing management's ineptness--perhaps the fine should have had 3 additional zeros added to it to get the proper response? There are many more problems with Boeing products when one searches for them. It ought to be clear that the entire management team at Boeing needs replacing.Also interesting that Boeing has more trouble (again) with the Boeing KC46 .Sunny Runny Burger , Sep 12 2019 16:53 utc | 11
"Boeing's troubled KC-46 Pegasus refueler and transport plane may have yet another design flaw. The Pentagon barred it from flying passengers and cargo after locks on one aircraft opened on their own.
Numerous cargo locks on the floor of one KC-46 unlocked several times during a recent test flight."Karl beat me to it :Db , Sep 12 2019 16:56 utc | 12@dh - If the FAA certifies the planes American Airlines and United will be the first to put them back in service.Mao Cheng Ji , Sep 12 2019 16:59 utc | 13
I doubt it. United will wait for EASA. There is a simple reason for that. United is codesharing with Lufthansa and other international Star Alliance airlines.
If one books a flight from Germany to some smaller city in the U.S. the first leg is usually on LH and the second a codeshare flight with UA.
Can LH sell tickets for such flights when the second leg is on an uncertified (for Europe) MAX?
How will its insurances and reinsurance cover that?
All such co-operations and agreements are only possible when regulators agree.They need more Indian programmers for $10/day each.Johnson , Sep 12 2019 17:03 utc | 14
Hire a couple hundred more of those, and it will be over in no time."Lack of alignment of regulatory agencies" translates to ..... we at Boeing whine that our ability to bribe the FAA doesn't apply worldwide, and we repeat our calls for One-Stop-Shopping for buying regulatory approvals. This would lead to higher efficiencies in our ability to bribe officials.dh , Sep 12 2019 17:05 utc | 15@12 Thanks b. I didn't know about the LH connection. I assume all the updated 737 Max planes will only be used on domestic flights by American, United and Southwest (which owns more Maxs than anyone).sejomoje , Sep 12 2019 17:07 utc | 16
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20692008/united-cancels-boeing-737-max-flights-novemberWe need a new term for this sort of thing - 4th World? If these things get back in the sky there will be protests. This is exactly the sort of thing that will have Americans cancelling their trips to DisneyWorld and writing to their congressmen. Maybe it's what we need. Unfortunately it probably won't happen. Next month there'll be another press release pushing it to December and so on, until the mess is ironed out I mean bailed out.Johnson , Sep 12 2019 17:08 utc | 17Boeing is Too-Big-To-Fail. Should such a prospect occur, we'd see their pet Congresspeople and Senators demanding that the taxpayers bail out the company. National Security would be given as the reason. Now that the industry has consolidated to the point where there are only a couple of airplane manufacturers for military contracts, the taxpayers will be told that it is impossible to allow one of them to fail. If you are an American taxpayer, expect to be grabbed by the ankles, held upside down and shook until even the last penny has been removed from your pockets.Johnson , Sep 12 2019 17:13 utc | 18In Europe, the "political pressure" would be applied in favor of Airbus.Sergei , Sep 12 2019 17:16 utc | 19Boeing Co.'s troubled 737 Max jets are unlikely to return to service until early 2020 as regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe remain divided and the planemaker has yet to submit its finalized software fix planned for this month, according to Barclays.Sergei , Sep 12 2019 17:22 utc | 20
Europe's aviation safety watchdog will not accept a US verdict on whether Boeing's troubled 737 Max is safe. Instead, the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) will run its own tests on the plane before approving a return to commercial flights.
The European Aviation Safety Agency plans to send its own pilots to the U.S. to conduct flight tests of Boeing Co.'s grounded 737 Max jet before it is returned to service, it said Tuesday.
Boeing's travails show what's wrong with modern capitalism. Deregulation means a company once run by engineers is now in the thrall of financiers and its stock remains high even as its planes fall from the sky
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/11/boeing-capitalism-deregulationThe 737 Max's return risks accidentally breaking the aviation industry. The industry is beginning to game out the potential unintended long-term consequences the events of 2019 will have on the business of commercial aviation.vk , Sep 12 2019 17:23 utc | 21
https://theaircurrent.com/industry-strategy/the-737-maxs-return-risks-accidentally-breaking-the-aviation-industry/The only reason the 737 MAX is not dead yet is because Boeing is an American company. Any other country (specially Russia and China), they would've already been banned and slapped with insurmountable fines.Sergei , Sep 12 2019 17:25 utc | 22
The 737 MAX's problems comes from its design and are unsolvable. The only way to unground it is through a cultural revolution in the West, where deaths by airplane become morally acceptable again. But that in itself would require billions of dollars spent in propaganda for decades, so the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall stands.Boeing has struggled since two crashes of its 737 Max aircraft led to the plane being grounded indefinitely. Still, analysts at Morgan Stanley think the company can recover and rally to $500 per share over the next 12 months. Morgan Stanley expects Boeing to post solid earnings growth, especially after the 737 Max is returned to service, which could be as soon as October.Walter , Sep 12 2019 17:39 utc | 23
https://www.businessinsider.nl/why-boeing-stock-price-could-rally-to-500-morgan-stanley-2019-9/Not to imply that the Boeing "errors" and the very early jet airliner "Comet" are even remotely similar... However the outcome may be similar?chu teh , Sep 12 2019 18:04 utc | 24
Let me sketch the deal>
Comet was a very good airplane. However the holes for the rivets holding it together (particularly 'round the windows) were punched, not drilled. The result was crack fatigue failure of a generally catastrophic character. Bang. they crashed. there's a wiki
" windows had been engineered to be glued and riveted, but had been punch riveted only. Unlike drill riveting, the imperfect nature of the hole created by punch riveting could cause fatigue cracks to start developing around the rivet. "
The Comet got fixed. The RAF flew them until recently, Excellent airplane. But...
But nobody would buy a ride ...Sweep this under the rug:from Deattle Times]vk , Sep 12 2019 18:07 utc | 25
"Mark Forkner, Boeing's chief technical pilot on the MAX project......
"Forkner suggested to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that MCAS not be included in the pilot manual...The FAA, after internal deliberations, agreed to keep MCAS out of the manual...
"Boeing won the FAA's approval to give pilots just an hour of training through an iPad about the differences between the MAX and the previous 737 generation. MCAS was not mentioned."
Here, read it for yourself:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/former-boeing-official-subpoenaed-in-737-max-probe-wont-turn-over-documents-citing-fifth-amendment-protection/Related news:james , Sep 12 2019 18:10 utc | 26
USAF bans Boeing tanker from carrying passengers after it malfunctions during test flighti agree with the idea of boeing being too big to fall...boeing = ltcm... we know what the ponzi scheme did with that one..c1ue , Sep 12 2019 18:23 utc | 27The notion that Boeing is going to "fail" in any form of short term timeframe is ridiculous.chu teh , Sep 12 2019 18:23 utc | 28
Even if the 737 never flies again, Boeing still has its other defense and existing commercial planes to sell parts, services and updates for.
Equally, there is very much a duopoly in commercial aircraft. There is literally no one else that has the capacity to replace Boeing's 737 - and I'm sure Boeing is counting on that. Even Airbus doesn't have the capacity to replace Boeing 737s.
How Boeing Public Relations handles the situation--old Bill , Sep 12 2019 18:40 utc | 29
1. Do not mention it.
2. If you have to talk about it, gum* it to death.
* gum it to death, e.g., see quote from Muilenberg near end of b's post, above.Systemantics by John Gall describes Boeing today, it is an organization satisfying its own needs.Walter , Sep 12 2019 19:09 utc | 30@ 27 "The notion that Boeing is going to "fail" in any form of short term timeframe is ridiculous."Jerry , Sep 12 2019 19:54 utc | 31
Very recently Keiser Report evaluated the company has having a net value of less than zero, and that they were one new loan from failing to make payroll.
Maybe he has another opinion... That the MIC will keep a moribund corpse animated, for a time... Maybe!I would rather walk than fly 737 Max. The plane is a death trap.CD Waller , Sep 12 2019 20:07 utc | 32
China and Russia both have new airliners that can fill the niche of the 737 Max and probably much much safer too. Western airlines may not buy them but BRICs countries will.Presumably not all Congressmen fly Lear Jets. They will be paying attention to Boeing's response and their constituent's emails.Siotu , Sep 12 2019 20:21 utc | 33
I don't understand the air force response to the cargo plane issues. Only put pilots at risk?
Do military planes also have to pass FAA certification? (Such as it is?) If so, how did the KC pass inspection?
If not, who insures their planes are air worthy?Hi Waltersnake , Sep 12 2019 20:36 utc | 34
Re the De Havilland Comet.
You are right, it was a brilliant airplane. Unfortunately at the time metal fatigue was a problem which was not understood in the context of pressurised aircraft.
What is interesting is how the British responded to the Comet's fatigue related explosive depressurisation troubles. Everything (and I mean everything) was grounded. Everything included many other aircraft types as well. The government ordered all development projects for new aircraft types at the time halted and then that they be reviewed. Even after that those projects could not proceed until the problems of the Comet were understood and could be solved [to demonstrate how severe the government's reaction was, consider that within the Bristol group of companies was a car building division and its forward model programmes were stopped and could not be restarted until the government rescinded its blanket bans- Bristol cars were affected since they were a part of an aviation organisation and the government's orders did not make distinction between cars and planes unfortunately].
The trouble was that even though the fatigue problem was subsequently understood and design amendments were arrived at to make Comet safe, that took time. In that time the British aero industry lost the lead it had built up across all commercial passenger aircraft sectors, not only for pressurised-cabin jet-propelled passenger aircraft but for everything else as well. Every project and new type launch was delayed, even including non-pressurised aircraft! Time passed quickly.
Boeing 707 arrived and took the market which could have already been partially populated by Comet aircraft. The mighty turbo-prop Bristols and others that were delayed similarly found themselves being launched into crowded markets where competitors already had a firm toe-hold. It was too late to get the sales they were intended to achieve. This set back was never able to be recovered. The take home is that the British government fatally wounded the British commercial aviation industry.
The Comet went on to a long life in civil and military aviation with the last passenger variant retired from regular timetabled commercial service in 1980 and the very last of the Comets flying retired in 1997 (there may have been a few historic and commemorative demo flights since but if there were they were not commercial service). The public certainly did buy tickets to fly Comet. It was a great aircraft and passengers had confidence in it. The trouble was that not that many got sold, since by the time they did re-enter the market the airlines were already running (and buying) 707s. It was too late!
So here we are watching Boeing burning. This time it is a problem which should never have occurred in the first place as the technical knowledge to avoid it existed (Comet was exactly the opposite situation). Boeing ought to review the 757 and 767 and do a modern version of one (or both) of those...[A]n absolutely brilliant comment on the problems of the financialisation of Boeing. Nobody could have asked for a clearer statement than this. Boeing has gone into self-destruct mode. by: BM @ 2 <= did you mean self-denial mode..JohninMK , Sep 12 2019 20:51 utc | 35
Boeing is a classic example ... by: Greg @ 3 <=of what happens when the local national government imposes on those it governs sufficient market exclusivity, and near exclusive access to the purse of the local national government, so that one and one company, can produce anything. Without competition, there is no incentive for its products to be safe..no incentive for its products to be efficient, because the government in partnership with its private monopoly company will bail out the private market partner using tax payer money.
The notion that Boeing is going to "fail" in any form of short term timeframe is ridiculous.
Even if the 737 never flies again, Boeing...there is literally no one else that has the capacity to replace Boeing's 737 - and I'm sure Boeing is counting on that. Even Airbus doesn't have the capacity to replace Boeing 737s. by: c1ue @ 27
EZ allows no competition, takes no prisoners, takes or destroys all that might some day be competition..
B's journalism it a world class performance.
Siotu | Sep 12 2019 20:21 utc | 33uncle tungsten , Sep 12 2019 20:53 utc | 36
The 767 has morphed into the KC-46 so they have done a lot of that work already, but it is a bit big. More puzzling is why the didn't take the 757 design forward.Ah siotu, so quick to blame the British Government for acting in the interest of public safety, but no condemnation of boeing for ignoring public safety. I get the picture but I prefer to read Goebbels.Siotu , Sep 12 2019 21:08 utc | 37JohninMKJerry , Sep 12 2019 21:12 utc | 38
That is a good question.
757, why not?757 - beautiful plane. Still being used by quite a few airlines. Trump's personal plane is a 757. He at least has good taste in planes.William H Warrick , Sep 12 2019 22:16 utc | 39
737 Max? Bag of shit.I hope they go bankrupt.Ghost Ship , Sep 12 2019 22:41 utc | 40>>>> dh | Sep 12 2019 16:43 utc | 8Jen , Sep 12 2019 22:41 utc | 41
Did you read the updates/dates?
An Update on the Boeing 737 MAX
Updated Sept. 1, 2019 at 9 a.m. CT.
Cancellations extended through Dec. 3
Updated July 14, 2019 at 9 a.m. CT.
Cancellations extended through Nov. 2.
Updated June 9, 2019 at 9 a.m. CT.
Cancellations extended through Sept. 3.
Updated April 14, 2019 at 9 a.m. CT.
As we prepare for summer, our focus is around planning for the busiest travel period of the year. Families everywhere are counting on American Airlines for their summer vacations, family reunions, trips to visit friends and adventures overseas. Our commitment to each other and to our customers is to operate the safest and most reliable operation in our history.
Updated April 7, 2019 at 9 a.m. CT.
American continues to await information from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), other regulatory authorities and Boeing that would permit the 24 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in our fleet to resume flying.
Updated March 14, 2019 at 4 p.m. CT.
On March 13, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all U.S.-registered Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, including the 8 and 9 variants, as a precautionary measure. This includes the 24 MAX 8 aircraft in the American Airlines fleet. We are complying with the FAA directive.
Somehow I don't think American are going to be the first to fly their 737Max.
Dennis Muilenburg's Wikipedia entry shows that his total compensation package in 2018 was US$23,392,187. The source is Bloomberg.Walter , Sep 12 2019 22:43 utc | 42
With that level of comfort for himself and his family, Muilenburg sure can afford to live in Tierra de los Cuckoos de la Nube.
One really has to wonder who Boeing Corporation's shareholders and investors are, that they tolerate such huge salary and compensation packages for senior people like Muilenburg while engineers, designers, technicians and factory-floor workers maybe don't get the pay or the working conditions they deserve. But I would not be surprised if most of Boeing's shareholders turn out to be the very senior corporate execs who borrow money from Wall St banks to buy shares in the company and expect workers to sacrifice parts of their own compensation packages to pay back the interest on those loans.@ Siotu | Sep 12 2019 20:21 utc | 33 (Comet)Ghost Ship , Sep 12 2019 22:45 utc | 43
You may know the movie, vaguely derivative of Comet>
"No Highway" Jimmy Stewart and Marlene Dietrich and other stars - on YT
I am ashamed I was too brief. And it is worth considering that the long term effect was to really hurt the UK airplane industry. Perhaps 40 years ago I was working with GE on a "go fix your screw-up" job on a cogen extraction turbine at a sawmill in Oregon. My engineer and I spent several happy hours drinking and chatting - after I found the sabotage (woodruff keys deliberately left out dust control rotary valves)---anyway "H.C." told me several things from his old days with GE, and jobbing around with several employers - right after the Korean war and through to our time together.
One was about repowering the Constellation airliners with GT's - and what went wrong with that > "alloys not suitable" ie metallurgic incompatibility. However it may be that the motivation was fear that there might be a Comet-type failure scenario...so it wasn't worth the risk. I don't know if there really was an issue with the Connie getting repowered - but they thought there was or might be. I understand that super DC 3's are, some, GT, but they're nonpresurized, and tough.
Another was an isotope separation method that I have never again heard of - but he said it worked, simply not economic (though what's "economic" about making "poot"?) I looked into it as theory. It's slow, but probably could be improved. Other than that it is not good to say.
Yet another about the hypersonic (?) re-entry shape that they dropped on near zero at Kwaj. (in the 1960's). I think it was pretty heavy...see Boeing X 20 @ wiki - what he spoke of was a 1/4 size (?) test vehicle shape, ie preliminary work, shooting from Vandenberg. I wonder if Boeing kept the data they had when X20 was cancelled.
Do read the X20 wiki...nazi boffins to us boffins to intercontinental rocketbomber...what a career to brag about in Hell!I suspect that Trump has the political chops to avoid pushing this with the FAA and foreign safety agencies. I'm not so sure about the #resistance. I can well see the Democrats complaining that Trump hasn't applied pressure.Jen , Sep 12 2019 22:53 utc | 44Ghost Ship @ 40:, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
We'll need a new description for the shade of deep blue that will have appeared on the faces of the PR spin doctors of AA and United Airlines by the time the FAA gives the Boeing 737MAX aircraft the all-clear to fly again.
I suggest that with your monicker being Ghost Ship, you go first to say what that colour should be called.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Post a comment Name:
Allowed HTML Tags:
< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
" Open Thread 53 | MainVerify your Comment Previewing your Comment
Sep 09, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
chu teh , Sep 8 2019 16:56 utc | 26re 737MAX--FAA collusion in b's link,above
Chief Test Pilot on 737MAX involved in cover-up:
[snippet from Sept 8 Seattle Times ]
"...During the certification process, Forkner suggested to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that MCAS not be included in the pilot manual, according to previous Seattle Times reporting.
The FAA, after internal deliberations, agreed to keep MCAS out of the manual, reasoning that MCAS was software that operates in the background as part of the flight-control system, according to an official familiar with the discussions.
In addition, Boeing won the FAA's approval to give pilots just an hour of training through an iPad about the differences between the MAX and the previous 737 generation. MCAS was not mentioned. ..."
Sep 04, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
United Airline and American Airlines further prolonged the grounding of their Boeing 737 MAX airplanes. They now schedule the plane's return to the flight line in December. But it is likely that the grounding will continue well into the next year.
After Boeing's shabby design and lack of safety analysis of its Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) led to the death of 347 people, the grounding of the type and billions of losses, one would expect the company to show some decency and humility. Unfortunately Boeing behavior demonstrates none.
There is still little detailed information on how Boeing will fix MCAS. Nothing was said by Boeing about the manual trim system of the 737 MAX that does not work when it is needed . The unprotected rudder cables of the plane do not meet safety guidelines but were still certified. The planes flight control computers can be overwhelmed by bad data and a fix will be difficult to implement. Boeing continues to say nothing about these issues.
International flight safety regulators no longer trust the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which failed to uncover those problems when it originally certified the new type. The FAA was also the last regulator to ground the plane after two 737 MAX had crashed. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) asked Boeing to explain and correct five major issues it identified. Other regulators asked additional questions.
Boeing needs to regain the trust of the airlines, pilots and passengers to be able to again sell those planes. Only full and detailed information can achieve that. But the company does not provide any.
As Boeing sells some 80% of its airplanes abroad it needs the good will of the international regulators to get the 737 MAX back into the air. This makes the arrogance it displayed in a meeting with those regulators inexplicable:Friction between Boeing Co. and international air-safety authorities threatens a new delay in bringing the grounded 737 MAX fleet back into service, according to government and pilot union officials briefed on the matter.
The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a Boeing briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil and elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control computers.
The fate of Boeing's civil aircraft business hangs on the re-certification of the 737 MAX. The regulators convened an international meeting to get their questions answered and Boeing arrogantly showed up without having done its homework. The regulators saw that as an insult. Boeing was sent back to do what it was supposed to do in the first place: provide details and analysis that prove the safety of its planes.
What did the Boeing managers think those regulatory agencies are? Hapless lapdogs like the FAA managers`who signed off on Boeing 'features' even after their engineers told them that these were not safe?
Buried in the Wall Street Journal piece quoted above is another little shocker:In recent weeks, Boeing and the FAA identified another potential flight-control computer risk requiring additional software changes and testing, according to two of the government and pilot officials.
The new issue must be going beyond the flight control computer (FCC) issues the FAA identified in June .
Boeing's original plan to fix the uncontrolled activation of MCAS was to have both FCCs active at the same time and to switch MCAS off when the two computers disagree. That was already a huge change in the general architecture which so far consisted of one active and one passive FCC system that could be switched over when a failure occurred.
Any additional software changes will make the issue even more complicated. The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity. All the extras procedures Boeing now will add to them may well exceed the system's capabilities.
Changing software in a delicate environment like a flight control computer is extremely difficult. There will always be surprising side effects or regressions where already corrected errors unexpectedly reappear.
The old architecture was possible because the plane could still be flown without any computer. It was expected that the pilots would detect a computer error and would be able to intervene. The FAA did not require a high design assurance level (DAL) for the system. The MCAS accidents showed that a software or hardware problem can now indeed crash a 737 MAX plane. That changes the level of scrutiny the system will have to undergo.
All procedures and functions of the software will have to be tested in all thinkable combinations to ensure that they will not block or otherwise influence each other. This will take months and there is a high chance that new issues will appear during these tests. They will require more software changes and more testing.
Flight safety regulators know of these complexities. That is why they need to take a deep look into such systems. That Boeing's management was not prepared to answer their questions shows that the company has not learned from its failure. Its culture is still one of finance orientated arrogance.
Building safe airplanes requires engineers who know that they may make mistakes and who have the humility to allow others to check and correct their work. It requires open communication about such issues. Boeing's say-nothing strategy will prolong the grounding of its planes. It will increases the damage to Boeing's financial situation and reputation.
--- Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:
- Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 12 2019
- Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight - Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 17 2019
- Ethiopian Airline Crash - Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed - April 9 2019
- Boeing 737 MAX Crash Reveals Severe Problem With Older Boeing 737 NGs - May 25 2019
- Boeing's Software Fix For The 737 MAX Problem Overwhelms The Plane's Computer - June 27 2019
- EASA Tells Boeing To Fix 5 Major 737 MAX Issues - July 7 2019
- The New Delay Of Boeing's 737 MAX Return Will Not Be The Last One - July 15 2019
- 737 MAX Rudder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified - July 28 2019
Posted by b on September 3, 2019 at 18:05 UTC | Permalink
Choderlos de Laclos , Sep 3 2019 18:15 utc | 1"The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity." You must be joking, right? If this is the case, the problem is unfixable: you can't find two competent software engineers who can program these dinosaur 16-bit processors.b , Sep 3 2019 18:22 utc | 2You must be joking, right? If this is the case, the problem is unfixable: you can't find two competent software engineers who can program these dinosaur 16-bit processors.Meshpal , Sep 3 2019 18:24 utc | 3
One of the two is writing this.
Half-joking aside. The 737 MAX FCC runs on 80286 processors. There are ten thousands of programmers available who can program them though not all are qualified to write real-time systems. That resource is not a problem. The processors inherent limits are one.Thanks b for the fine 737 max update. Others news sources seem to have dropped coverage. It is a very big deal that this grounding has lasted this long. Things are going to get real bad for Boeing if this bird does not get back in the air soon. In any case their credibility is tarnished if not down right trashed.BraveNewWorld , Sep 3 2019 18:35 utc | 4@1 Choderlos de LaclosChoderlos de Laclos , Sep 3 2019 18:52 utc | 5
What ever software language these are programmed in (my guess is C) the compilers still exist for it and do the translation from the human readable code to the machine code for you. Of course the code could be assembler but writing assembly code for a 286 is far easier than writing it for say an i9 becuase the CPU is so much simpler and has a far smaller set of instructions to work with.@b: It was a hyperbole. I might be another one, but left them behind as fast as I could. The last time I had to deal with it was an embedded system in 1998-ish. But I am also retiring, and so are thousands of others. The problems with support of a legacy system are a legend.psychohistorian , Sep 3 2019 18:56 utc | 6Thanks for the demise of Boeing update bkarlof1 , Sep 3 2019 19:13 utc | 7
I commented when you first started writing about this that it would take Boeing down and still believe that to be true. To the extent that Boeing is stonewalling the international safety regulators says to me that upper management and big stock holders are being given time to minimize their exposure before the axe falls.
I also want to add that Boeing's focus on profit over safety is not restricted to the 737 Max but undoubtedly permeates the manufacture of spare parts for the rest of the their plane line and all else they make.....I have no intention of ever flying in another Boeing airplane, given the attitude shown by Boeing leadership.
This is how private financialization works in the Western world. Their bottom line is profit, not service to the flying public. It is in line with the recent public statement by the CEO's from the Business Roundtable that said that they were going to focus more on customer satisfaction over profit but their actions continue to say profit is their primary motive.
The God of Mammon private finance religion can not end soon enough for humanity's sake. It is not like we all have to become China but their core public finance example is well worth following.So again, Boeing mgmt. mirrors its Neoliberal government officials when it comes to arrogance and impudence. IMO, Boeing shareholders's hair ought to be on fire given their BoD's behavior and getting ready to litigate.bjd , Sep 3 2019 19:22 utc | 8
As b notes, Boeing's international credibility's hanging by a very thin thread. A year from now, Boeing could very well see its share price deeply dive into the Penny Stock category--its current P/E is 41.5:1 which is massively overpriced. Boeing Bombs might come to mean something vastly different from its initial meaning.Arrogance? When the money keeps flowing in anyway, it comes naturally.What did I just read , Sep 3 2019 19:49 utc | 10Such seemingly archaic processors are the norm in aerospace. If the planes flight characteristics had been properly engineered from the start the processor wouldn't be an issue. You can't just spray perfume on a garbage pile and call it a rose.VietnamVet , Sep 3 2019 20:31 utc | 12In the neoliberal world order governments, regulators and the public are secondary to corporate profits. This is the same belief system that is suspending the British Parliament to guarantee the chaos of a no deal Brexit. The irony is that globalist, Joe Biden's restart the Cold War and nationalist Donald Trump's Trade Wars both assure that foreign regulators will closely scrutinize the safety of the 737 Max. Even if ignored by corporate media and cleared by the FAA to fly in the USA, Boeing and Wall Street's Dow Jones average are cooked gooses with only 20% of the market. Taking the risk of flying the 737 Max on their family vacation or to their next business trip might even get the credentialed class to realize that their subservient service to corrupt Plutocrats is deadly in the long term.jared , Sep 3 2019 20:55 utc | 14It doesn't get any TBTF'er than Boing. Bail-out is only phone-call away. With down-turn looming, the line is forming.Piotr Berman , Sep 3 2019 21:11 utc | 15Ken Murray , Sep 3 2019 21:12 utc | 16"The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a Boeing BA, -2.66% briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil and elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control computers."
It seems to me that Boeing had no intention to insult anybody, but it has an impossible task. After decades of applying duct tape and baling wire with much success, they finally designed an unfixable plane, and they can either abandon this line of business (narrow bodied airliners) or start working on a new design grounded in 21st century technologies.Boeing's military sales are so much more significant and important to them, they are just ignoring/down-playing their commercial problem with the 737 MAX. Follow the real money.Arata , Sep 3 2019 21:57 utc | 17That is unblievable FLight Control comptuer is based on 80286! A control system needs Real Time operation, at least some pre-emptive task operation, in terms of milisecond or microsecond. What ever way you program 80286 you can not achieve RT operation on 80286. I do not think that is the case. My be 80286 is doing some pripherial work, other than control.Bemildred , Sep 3 2019 22:11 utc | 18It is quite likely (IMHO) that they are no longer able to provide the requested information, but of course they cannot say that.Peter AU 1 , Sep 3 2019 22:14 utc | 19
I once wrote a keyboard driver for an 80286, part of an editor, in assembler, on my first PC type computer, I still have it around here somewhere I think, the keyboard driver, but I would be rusty like the Titanic when it comes to writing code. I wrote some things in DEC assembler too, on VAXen.Arata 16Bemildred , Sep 3 2019 22:17 utc | 20
The spoiler system is fly by wire.arata @16: 80286 does interrupts just fine, but you have to grok asynchronous operation, and most coders don't really, I see that every day in Linux and my browser. I wish I could get that box back, it had DOS, you could program on the bare wires, but God it was slow.Tod , Sep 3 2019 22:28 utc | 21Boeing will just need to press the TURBO button on the 286 processor. Problem solved.karlof1 , Sep 3 2019 22:43 utc | 23Ken Murray @15--Godfree Roberts , Sep 3 2019 22:56 utc | 24
Boeing recently lost a $6+Billion weapons contract thanks to its similar Q&A in that realm of its business. Its annual earnings are due out in October. Plan to short-sell soon!I am surprised that none of the coverage has mentioned the fact that, if China's CAAC does not sign off on the mods, it will cripple, if not doom the MAX.Arioch , Sep 3 2019 23:18 utc | 25
I am equally surprised that we continue to sabotage China's export leader, as the WSJ reports today: "China's Huawei Technologies Co. accused the U.S. of "using every tool at its disposal" to disrupt its business, including launching cyberattacks on its networks and instructing law enforcement to "menace" its employees.
The telecommunications giant also said law enforcement in the U.S. have searched, detained and arrested Huawei employees and its business partners, and have sent FBI agents to the homes of its workers to pressure them to collect information on behalf of the U.S."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-accuses-the-u-s-of-cyberattacks-threatening-its-employees-11567500484?mod=hp_lead_pos2I wonder how much blind trust in Boeing is intertwined into the fabric of civic aviation all around the world.Miss Lacy , Sep 3 2019 23:19 utc | 26
I mean something like this: Boeing publishes some research into failure statistics, solid materials aging or something. One that is really hard and expensive to proceed with. Everything take the results for granted without trying to independently reproduce and verify, because The Boeing!
Some later "derived" researches being made, upon the foundation of some prior works *including* that old Boeing research. Then FAA and similar company institutions around the world make some official regulations and guidelines deriving from the research which was in part derived form original Boeing work. Then insurance companies calculate their tarifs and rate plans, basing their estimation upon those "government standards", and when governments determine taxation levels they use that data too. Then airline companies and airliner leasing companies make their business plans, take huge loans in the banks (and banks do make their own plans expecting those loans to finally be paid back), and so on and so forth, building the cards-deck house, layer after layer.
And among the very many of the cornerstones - there would be dust covered and god-forgotten research made by Boeing 10 or maybe 20 years ago when no one even in drunk delirium could ever imagine questioning Boeing's verdicts upon engineering and scientific matters.
Now, the longevity of that trust is slowly unraveled. Like, the so universally trusted 737NG generation turned out to be inherently unsafe, and while only pilots knew it before, and even of them - only most curious and pedantic pilots, today it becomes public knowledge that 737NG are tainted.
Now, when did this corruption started? Wheat should be some deadline cast into the past, that since the day every other technical data coming from Boeing should be considered unreliable unless passing full-fledged independent verification? Should that day be somewhere in 2000-s? 1990-s? Maybe even 1970-s?
And ALL THE BODY of civic aviation industry knowledge that was accumulated since that date can NO MORE BE TRUSTED and should be almost scrapped and re-researched new! ALL THE tacit INPUT that can be traced back to Boeing and ALL THE DERIVED KNOWLEDGE now has to be verified in its entirety.Boeing is backstopped by the Murkan MIC, which is to say the US taxpayer. Until the lawsuits become too enormous. I wonder how much that will cost. And speaking of rigged markets - why do ya suppose that Trumpilator et al have been so keen to make huge sales to the Saudis, etc. etc. ? Ya don't suppose they had an inkling of trouble in the wind do ya? Speaking of insiders, how many million billions do ya suppose is being made in the Wall Street "trade war" roller coaster by peeps, munchkins not muppets, who have access to the Tweeter-in-Chief?C I eh? , Sep 3 2019 23:25 utc | 27@6 psychohistorianLochearn , Sep 3 2019 23:45 utc | 30I commented when you first started writing about this that it would take Boeing down and still believe that to be true. To the extent that Boeing is stonewalling the international safety regulators says to me that upper management and big stock holders are being given time to minimize their exposure before the axe falls.
Have you considered the costs of restructuring versus breaking apart Boeing and selling it into little pieces; to the owners specifically?
The MIC is restructuring itself - by first creating the political conditions to make the transformation highly profitable. It can only be made highly profitable by forcing the public to pay the associated costs of Rape and Pillage Incorporated.
Military Industrial Complex welfare programs, including wars in Syria and Yemen, are slowly winding down. We are about to get a massive bill from the financiers who already own everything in this sector, because what they have left now is completely unsustainable, with or without a Third World War.
It is fine that you won't fly Boeing but that is not the point. You may not ever fly again since air transit is subsidized at every level and the US dollar will no longer be available to fund the world's air travel infrastructure.
You will instead be paying for the replacement of Boeing and seeing what google is planning it may not be for the renewal of the airline business but rather for dedicated ground transportation, self driving cars and perhaps 'aerospace' defense forces, thank you Russia for setting the trend.As readers may remember I made a case study of Boeing for a fairly recent PHD. The examiners insisted that this case study be taken out because it was "speculative." I had forecast serious problems with the 787 and the 737 MAX back in 2012. I still believe the 787 is seriously flawed and will go the way of the MAX. I came to admire this once brilliant company whose work culminated in the superb 777.dus7 , Sep 3 2019 23:53 utc | 32
America really did make some excellent products in the 20th century - with the exception of cars. Big money piled into GM from the early 1920s, especially the ultra greedy, quasi fascist Du Pont brothers, with the result that GM failed to innovate. It produced beautiful cars but technically they were almost identical to previous models.
The only real innovation over 40 years was automatic transmission. Does this sound reminiscent of the 737 MAX? What glued together GM for more than thirty years was the brilliance of CEO Alfred Sloan who managed to keep the Du Ponts (and J P Morgan) more or less happy while delegating total responsibility for production to divisional managers responsible for the different GM brands. When Sloan went the company started falling apart and the memoirs of bad boy John DeLorean testify to the complete disfunctionality of senior management.
At Ford the situation was perhaps even worse in the 1960s and 1970s. Management was at war with the workers, faulty transmissions were knowingly installed. All this is documented in an excellent book by ex-Ford supervisor Robert Dewar in his book "A Savage Factory."Well, the first thing that came to mind upon reading about Boeing's apparent arrogance overseas - silly, I know - was that Boeing may be counting on some weird Trump sanctions for anyone not cooperating with the big important USian corporation! The U.S. has influence on European and many other countries, but it can only be stretched so far, and I would guess messing with Euro/internation airline regulators, especially in view of the very real fatal accidents with the 737MAX, would be too far.david , Sep 4 2019 0:09 utc | 34Please read the following article to get further info about how the 5 big Funds that hold 67% of Boeing stocks are working hard with the big banks to keep the stock high. Meanwhile Boeing is also trying its best to blackmail US taxpayers through Pentagon, for example, by pretending to walk away from a competitive bidding contract because it wants the Air Force to provide better cost formula.chu teh , Sep 4 2019 0:13 utc | 36
So basically, Boeing is being kept afloat by US taxpayers because it is "too big to fail" and an important component of Dow. Please tell. Who is the biggest suckers here?re Piotr Berman | Sep 3 2019 21:11 utc [I have a tiny bit of standing in this matter based on experience with an amazingly similar situation that has not heretofore been mentioned. More at end. Thus I offer my opinion.] Indeed, an impossible task to design a workable answer and still maintain the fiction that 737MAX is a hi-profit-margin upgrade requiring minimal training of already-trained 737-series pilots , either male or female. Turning-off autopilot to bypass runaway stabilizer necessitates : Jen , Sep 4 2019 0:20 utc | 37
the earlier 737-series "rollercoaster" procedure to overcome too-high aerodynamic forces must be taught and demonstrated as a memory item to all pilots.
The procedure was designed for early Model 737-series, not the 737MAX which has uniquely different center-of-gravity and pitch-up problem requiring MCAS to auto-correct, especially on take-off.  but the "rollercoaster" procedure does not work at all altitudes.
It causes aircraft to lose some altitude and, therefore, requires at least [about] 7,000-feet above-ground clearance to avoid ground contact. [This altitude loss consumed by the procedure is based on alleged reports of simulator demonstrations. There seems to be no known agreement on the actual amount of loss].  The physical requirements to perform the "rollercoaster" procedure were established at a time when female pilots were rare.
Any 737MAX pilots, male or female, will have to pass new physical requirements demonstrating actual conditions on newly-designed flight simulators that mimic the higher load requirements of the 737MAX . Such new standards will also have to compensate for left vs right-handed pilots because the manual-trim wheel is located between the .pilot/copilot seats.
Now where/when has a similar situation occurred? I.e., wherein a Federal regulator agency [FAA] allowed a vendor [Boeing] to claim that a modified product did not need full inspection/review to get agency certification of performance [airworthiness]. As you may know, 2 working, nuclear, power plants were forced to shut down and be decommissioned when, in 2011, 2 newly-installed, critical components in each plant were discovered to be defective, beyond repair and not replaceable. These power plants were each producing over 1,000 megawatts of power for over 20 years. In short, the failed components were modifications of the original, successful design that claimed to need only a low-level of Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight and approval. The mods were, in fact, new and untried and yet only tested by computer modeling and theoretical estimations based on experience with smaller/different designs.
<<< The NRC had not given full inspection/oversight to the new units because of manufacturer/operator claims that the changes were not significant. The NRC did not verify the veracity of those claims. >>>
All 4 components [2 required in each plant] were essentially heat-exchangers weighing 640 tons each, having 10,000 tubes carrying radioactive water surrounded by [transferring their heat to] a separate flow of "clean" water. The tubes were progressively damaged and began leaking. The new design failed. It can not be fixed. Thus, both plants of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are now a complete loss and await dismantling [as the courts will decide who pays for the fiasco].In my mind, the fact that Boeing transferred its head office from Seattle (where the main manufacturing and presumable the main design and engineering functions are based) to Chicago (centre of the neoliberal economic universe with the University of Chicago being its central shrine of worship, not to mention supply of future managers and administrators) in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over people and performance.Lochearn , Sep 4 2019 0:22 utc | 38
Phew! I barely took a breath there! :-)@ 32 davidjo6pac , Sep 4 2019 0:39 utc | 40
Good article. Boeing is, or used to be, America's biggest manufacturing export. So you are right it cannot be allowed to fail. Boeing is also a manufacturer of military aircraft. The fact that it is now in such a pitiful state is symptomatic of America's decline and decadence and its takeover by financial predators.Posted by: Jen | Sep 4 2019 0:20 utc | 35vk , Sep 4 2019 0:53 utc | 41
Nailed, moved to city of dead but not for gotten uncle Milton Frieman friend of aynn rand.I don't think Boeing was arrogant. I think the 737 is simply unfixable and that they know that -- hence they went to the meeting with empty hands.C I eh? , Sep 4 2019 1:14 utc | 42They did the same with Nortel, whose share value exceeded 300 billion not long before it was scrapped. Insiders took everything while pension funds were wiped out of existence.Walter , Sep 4 2019 3:10 utc | 43
It is so very helpful to understand everything you read is corporate/intel propaganda, and you are always being setup to pay for the next great scam. The murder of 300+ people by boeing was yet another tragedy our sadistic elites could not let go to waste.Willow , Sep 4 2019 3:16 utc | 44
...And to the idea that Boeing is being kept afloat by financial agencies.Aljazerra has a series of excellent investigative documentaries they did on Boeing. Here is one from 2014. https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/Igor Bundy , Sep 4 2019 3:17 utc | 45For many amerikans, a good "offensive" is far preferable than a good defense even if that only involves an apology. Remember what ALL US presidents say.. We will never apologize.. For the extermination of natives, for shooting down civilian airliners, for blowing up mosques full of worshipers, for bombing hospitals.. for reducing many countries to the stone age and using biological and chemical and nuclear weapons against the planet.. For supporting terrorists who plague the planet now. For basically being able to be unaccountable to anyone including themselves as a peculiar race of feces. So it is not the least surprising that amerikan corporations also follow the same bad manners as those they put into and pre-elect to rule them.Igor Bundy , Sep 4 2019 3:26 utc | 46People talk about Seattle as if its a bastion of integrity.. Its the same place Microsoft screwed up countless companies to become the largest OS maker? The same place where Amazon fashions how to screw its own employees to work longer and cheaper? There are enough examples that Seattle is not Toronto.. and will never be a bastion of ethics..Igor Bundy , Sep 4 2019 3:54 utc | 47
Actually can you show me a single place in the US where ethics are considered a bastion of governorship? Other than the libraries of content written about ethics, rarely do amerikans ever follow it. Yet expect others to do so.. This is getting so perverse that other cultures are now beginning to emulate it. Because its everywhere..
Remember Dallas? I watched people who saw in fascination how business can function like that. Well they cant in the long run but throw enough money and resources and it works wonders in the short term because it destroys the competition. But yea around 1998 when they got rid of the laws on making money by magic, most every thing has gone to hell.. because now there are no constraints but making money.. anywhich way.. Thats all that matters..You got to be daft or bribed to use intel cpu's in embedded systems. Going from a motorolla cpu, the intel chips were dinosaurs in every way. Requiring the cpu to be almost twice as fast to get the same thing done.. Also its interrupt control was not upto par. A simple example was how the commodore amiga could read from the disk and not stutter or slow down anything else you were doing. I never seen this fixed.. In fact going from 8Mhz to 4GHz seems to have fixed it by brute force. Yes the 8Mhz motorolla cpu worked wonders when you had music, video, IO all going at the same time. Its not just the CPU but the support chips which don't lock up the bus. Why would anyone use Intel? When there are so many specific embedded controllers designed for such specific things.imo , Sep 4 2019 4:00 utc | 48Initially I thought it was just the new over-sized engines they retro-fitted. A situation that would surely have been easier to get around by just going back to the original engines -- any inefficiencies being less $costly than the time the planes have been grounded. But this post makes the whole rabbit warren 10 miles deeper.Joost , Sep 4 2019 4:25 utc | 50
I do not travel much these days and find the cattle-class seating on these planes a major disincentive. Becoming aware of all these added technical issues I will now positively select for alternatives to 737 and bear the cost.Henkie , Sep 4 2019 7:04 utc | 53I'm surprised Boeing stock still haven't taken nose diveThat is because the price is propped up by $9 billion share buyback per year . Share buyback is an effective scheme to airlift all the cash out of a company towards the major shareholders. I mean, who wants to develop reliable airplanes if you can funnel the cash into your pockets?
Posted by: Bob burger | Sep 3 2019 19:27 utc | 9
Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics.Hi , I am new here in writing but not in reading.. About the 80286 , where is the coprocessor the 80287? How can the 80286 make IEEE math calculations? So how can it fly a controlled flight when it can not calculate its accuracy...... How is it possible that this system is certified? It should have at least a 80386 DX not SX!!!!snake , Sep 4 2019 7:35 utc | 54moved to Chicago in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over people and performance.Canthama , Sep 4 2019 10:37 utc | 56
Jen @ 35 < ==
yes, the morally of the companies and their exclusive hold on a complicit or controlled government always defaults the government to support, enforce and encourage the principles of economic Zionism.
But it is more than just the corporate culture => the corporate fat cats 1. use the rule-making powers of the government to make law for them. Such laws create high valued assets from the pockets of the masses. The most well know of those corporate uses of government is involved with the intangible property laws (copyright, patent, and government franchise). The government generated copyright, franchise and Patent laws are monopolies. So when government subsidizes a successful outcome R&D project its findings are packaged up into a set of monopolies [copyrights, privatized government franchises which means instead of 50 companies or more competing for the next increment in technology, one gains the full advantage of that government research only one can use or abuse it. and the patented and copyrighted technology is used to extract untold billions, in small increments from the pockets of the public. 2. use of the judicial power of governments and their courts in both domestic and international settings, to police the use and to impose fake values in intangible property monopolies. Government-rule made privately owned monopoly rights (intangible property rights) generated from the pockets of the masses, do two things: they exclude, deny and prevent would be competition and their make value in a hidden revenue tax that passes to the privately held monopolist with each sale of a copyrighted, government franchised, or patented service or product. . Please note the one two nature of the "use of government law making powers to generate intangible private monopoly property rights"There is no doubt Boeing has committed crimes on the 737MAX, its arrogance & greedy should be severely punished by the international commitment as an example to other global Corporations. It represents what is the worst of Corporate America that places profits in front of lives.Christian J Chuba , Sep 4 2019 11:55 utc | 59How the U.S. is keeping Russia out of the international market?BM , Sep 4 2019 12:48 utc | 60
Iran and other sanctioned countries are a potential captive market and they have growth opportunities in what we sometimes call the non-aligned, emerging markets countries (Turkey, Africa, SE Asia, India, ...).
One thing I have learned is that the U.S. always games the system, we never play fair. So what did we do. Do their manufacturers use 1% U.S. made parts and they need that for international certification?Ultimately all of the issues in the news these days are the same one and the same issue - as the US gets closer and closer to the brink of catastrophic collapse they get ever more desperate. As they get more and more desperate they descend into what comes most naturally to the US - throughout its entire history - frenzied violence, total absence of morality, war, murder, genocide, and everything else that the US is so well known for (by those who are not blinded by exceptionalist propaganda).Piotr Berman , Sep 4 2019 13:23 utc | 61
The Hong Kong violence is a perfect example - it is impossible that a self-respecting nation state could allow itself to be seen to degenerate into such idiotic degeneracy, and so grossly flaunt the most basic human decency. Ergo , the US is not a self-respecting nation state. It is a failed state.
I am certain the arrogance of Boeing reflects two things: (a) an assurance from the US government that the government will back them to the hilt, come what may, to make sure that the 737Max flies again; and (b) a threat that if Boeing fails to get the 737Max in the air despite that support, the entire top level management and board of directors will be jailed. Boeing know very well they cannot deliver. But just as the US government is desperate to avoid the inevitable collapse of the US, the Boeing top management are desperate to avoid jail. It is a charade.
It is time for international regulators to withdraw certification totally - after the problems are all fixed (I don't believe they ever will be), the plane needs complete new certification of every detail from the bottom up, at Boeing's expense, and with total openness from Boeing. The current Boeing management are not going to cooperate with that, therefore the international regulators need to demand a complete replacement of the management and board of directors as a condition for working with them.From ZeroHedge link:morongobill , Sep 4 2019 14:08 utc | 63
If Boeing had invested some of this money that it blew on share buybacks to design a new modern plane from ground up to replace the ancient 737 airframe, these tragedies could have been prevented, and Boeing wouldn't have this nightmare on its hands. But the corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers, rather than real engineers, had the final word.
Markets don't care about any of this. They don't care about real engineers either. They love corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers. They want share buybacks, and if something bad happens, they'll overlook the $5 billion to pay for the fallout because it's just a "one-time item."
And now Boeing still has this plane, instead of a modern plane, and the history of this plane is now tainted, as is its brand, and by extension, that of Boeing. But markets blow that off too. Nothing matters.
Companies are getting away each with their own thing. There are companies that are losing a ton of money and are burning tons of cash, with no indications that they will ever make money. And market valuations are just ludicrous.
Thus Boeing issue is part of a much larger picture. Something systemic had to make "markets" less rational. And who is this "market"? In large part, fund managers wracking their brains how to create "decent return" while the cost of borrowing and returns on lending are super low. What remains are forms of real estate and stocks.
Overall, Boeing buy-backs exceeded 40 billion dollars, one could guess that half or quarter of that would suffice to build a plane that logically combines the latest technologies. E.g. the entire frame design to fit together with engines, processors proper for the information processing load, hydraulics for steering that satisfy force requirements in almost all circumstances etc. New technologies also fail because they are not completely understood, but when the overall design is logical with margins of safety, the faults can be eliminated.
Instead, 737 was slowly modified toward failure, eliminating safety margins one by one.Allan Bowman , Sep 4 2019 15:15 utc | 66
Regarding the 80286 and the 737, don't forget that the air traffic control system and the ICBM system uses old technology as well.
Seems our big systems have feet of old silicon.Boeing has apparently either never heard of, or ignores a procedure that is mandatory in satellite design and design reviews. This is FMEA or Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. This requires design engineers to document the impact of every potential failure and combination of failures thereby highlighting everthing from catastrophic effects to just annoyances. Clearly BOEING has done none of these and their troubles are a direct result. It can be assumed that their arrogant and incompetent management has not yet understood just how serious their behavior is to the future of the company.fx , Sep 4 2019 16:08 utc | 69Bemildred , Sep 4 2019 16:11 utc | 70Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics.
Posted by: Joost | Sep 4 2019 4:25 utc | 50
Well put!Computer modelling is what they are talking about in the cliche "Garbage in, garbage out".Trond , Sep 4 2019 17:01 utc | 79
The problem is not new, and it is well understood. What computer modelling is is cheap, and easy to fudge, and that is why it is popular with people who care about money a lot. Much of what is called "AI" is very similar in its limitations, a complicated way to fudge up the results you want, or something close enough for casual examination.
In particular cases where you have a well-defined and well-mathematized theory, then you can get some useful results with models. Like in Physics, Chemistry.
And they can be useful for "realistic" training situations, like aircraft simulators. The old story about wargame failures against Iran is another such situation. A lot of video games are big simulations in essence. But that is not reality, it's fake reality.@ SteveK9 71 "By the way, the problem was caused by Mitsubishi, who designed the heat exchangers."c1ue , Sep 4 2019 19:44 utc | 80
Ahh. The furriners...
I once made the "mistake" of pointing out (in a comment under an article in Salon) that the reactors that exploded at Fukushima was made by GE and that GE people was still in charge of the reactors of American quality when they exploded. (The amerikans got out on one of the first planes out of the country).
I have never seen so many angry replies to one of my comments. I even got e-mails for several weeks from angry Americans.@Henkie #53 You need floating point for scientific calculations, but I really doubt the 737 is doing any scientific research. Also, a regular CPU can do mathematical calculations. It just isn't as fast nor has the same capacity as a dedicated FPU. Another common use for FPUs is in live action shooter games - the neo-physics portions utilize scientific-like calculations to create lifelike actions. I sold computer systems in the 1990s while in school - Doom was a significant driver for newer systems (as well as hedge fund types). Again, don't see why an airplane needs this.
Aug 29, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Everything went according to neoliberal dogma: Greed is good
As nondoc.com reported:
"I've opted not to read the entire 42-page judgment," Balkman told a packed courtroom in Norman shortly before announcing the numbers in his verdict. "The opioid crisis is an eminent and menace to Oklahomans.
My judgement includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that the state met its burden that the defendants Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance as defined by 50 O.S. Sec. 1 , including a finding that those actions compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans.
Specifically, defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma."
Balkman said the opioid crisis is a "temporary public nuisance that can be abated."
"As I just stated, the opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately. For this reason, I am entering an abatement plan that consists of costs totaling $572,102,028 to immediately remediate the nuisance," Balkman said. "This is the amount of costs that I am constrained to order Janssen and Johnson & Johnson to pay based on the particulars of a nuisance claim and the evidence that was presented at trial.
"Whether additional programs and fundings are needed over an extended period of time, those are determinations to be made by our legislators and policy makers. In this moment and based on this record, this is what the court can and will do to abate the nuisance."
Balkman noted that he still has jurisdiction over the case , and that he almost certainly will be asked to make additional rulings.
"So it impossible for me to make any further statements about the trial or my ruling other than what I have said today," Balkman said.
Note that a judge, not a jury set the amount of damages to be awarded. A jury would almost certainly have awarded a higher payout by J & J (although that hypothetical amount may then have been reduced after appeal).
The amount J & J must now pay the state of Oklahoma is significantly greater than the $270 million Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin owned by the Sackler family, and the $85 million Teva Pharmaceuticals, separately agreed previously to settle each's respective Oklahoma claims. \
Additionally, Purdue and Teva also avoided incurring the costs of contesting a trial.
John Zelnicker , August 28, 2019 at 12:25 pm
Jerri-Lynn – Thank you for keeping us updated on the progress of these lawsuits. The pharmaceutical drug dealers need to be held accountable for the damage they have caused. The claim that OxyContin was not addictive, or less so than other opioids, was laughable to anyone who had some experience with them.
There have been three prosecutions locally of doctors who were giving out opioids like candy, even letting nurses write the scrips so the "patients" could be moved through the process more quickly.
I was a patient of one of those doctors (back problems, including surgery) for a while a couple of years before he was prosecuted, lost his license, and had to do some time in prison (IIRC). He seemed to follow most of the rules (and wrote all scrips himself), but was easily persuaded to increase a patient's dosage. Fortunately, I stopped taking opioids before things got hot.
Adam1 , August 28, 2019 at 12:39 pm
Unless it comes with several decades of jail time and confiscation of all private property obtained with ill begot gains (that's what we'd hand a major heroin dealer) then it's not a reasonable settlement.
J&J the company didn't do anything. It's just a legal, non-person thing. The criminals are the people running it and they need to be the ones held liable.
Don't get me wrong. J&J as a company needs to help fix this mess, but we can't let the real criminals slither into the night and drift off on their yachts drinking champagne bought with money taken from ruined families and communities.
PKMKII , August 28, 2019 at 12:43 pm
For context, J&J's net income for 2018 was $15.29 billion. So this particular verdict represents 3.74% of J&J's annual net income.
Annieb , August 28, 2019 at 1:37 pm
To get the full extent of Purdue's criminality, read "American Overdose." The author is Chris McGreal While reading it, I thought that this opioid epidemic began and developed in a similar fashion to the subprime mortgage fiasco with the same type of warnings, collusions and criminal fraud. Huge profits for the corporate criminals. And , tragically, the resulting human consequences, financial ruin in the one case and death in the other.
notabanktoadie , August 28, 2019 at 4:16 pm
In a healthy society, i.e. one with economic justice*, the demand for drugs would be small since there would be little need to escape reality per:
Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to him whose life is bitter.
Let him drink and forget his poverty
And remember his trouble no more.
Open your mouth for the mute,
For the rights of all the unfortunate.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. Proverbs 31:6-9 [bold added]
*Which certainly would not include government privileges for private credit creation, i.e. for the banks and the rich, the most so-called credit worthy of what is then, in essence, the PUBLIC'S credit but for private profit.
DonCoyote , August 28, 2019 at 4:35 pm
Johnson & Johnson Pledges To Push Uppers For Couple Decades To Even Things Out (The Onion)
Gorsky also assured Johnson & Johnson's business partners the stimulants it plans to produce will be every bit as addictive as opioids and accompanied by an equally widespread misinformation campaign.
I think they forgot to mention that that's where $544 million of the $572 million settlement will go–back to J&J to produce, market, and distribute the uppers.
Aug 29, 2019 | www.spiegel.de
Pushing It to the Max Boeing's Crashes Expose Systemic Failings
The crash of two Boeing 737 Max jets in the course of just months has created an existential crisis for the company. Were the 346 who died in Indonesia and Ethiopia the victims of shortcuts and cutthroat competition in the aviation industry?... ... ...
From here, there's a direct connection to Indonesia, where only five months earlier, on Oct. 29, Lion Air Flight 610 likewise entered a steep dive, slamming into the Java Sea minutes after takeoff. Together, these two crashes plunged the aviation world into turmoil. And all eyes were suddenly trained on an airplane that had only just gone on the market: the Boeing 737 Max.
Within hours of the second crash, China ordered all planes of that model to be grounded. The United States needed three days to follow suit. Since then, 550 of the new planes around the world, with a sticker price of around $135 million, have been paralyzed. If it were up to Boeing, the aircraft would have been back in service long ago, patched up with a software update. But following the failure of the update in question in tests conducted in late June, the crisis has been ongoing. The 737 Max remains grounded and all eyes are still fixed on Boeing.
In recent weeks, DER SPIEGEL dispatched a reporting team to Seattle, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Addis Ababa, Jakarta and Paris to shed light on the events leading up to and including the crashes. They conducted interviews with Boeing executives and airline managers, visited Boeing factories and spoke to experts who explained the technical side of what went wrong. They even stepped into a flight simulator to get a better understanding. In Ethiopia and Indonesia, they tracked down eyewitnesses of the crashes and spoke to the victims' surviving family members around the world along with lawyers and experts.
DER SPIEGEL learned a great deal about the bizarre process of regulatory approval in the U.S. We also learned of a complaint by a whistleblower at Boeing, who approached the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in June with serious accusations against the airplane manufacturer.
A best-case scenario is hard to imagine given the dire straits in which Boeing currently finds itself. The only way our standard approach to the risks of flying can possibly remain unchanged is if, at the end of the investigations in Ethiopia and Indonesia, it is determined that both were truly accidents in the conventional sense and their similarities.
But if it is revealed that 346 people died because both a corporation and the regulators tasked with overseeing it were grossly negligent, or even deliberately lax, then it would have far-reaching consequences for the aviation industry, the credibility of supervisory bodies and for normal people's everyday lives.
A Feared Lawyer
It was nighttime in New York when the Boeing 737 fell out of the sky in Ethiopia. Marc Moller heard about it on Sunday morning right after he woke up. An Ethiopian Airlines plane, he learned, had crashed on the way to Nairobi with 157 people on board. His first thought was: Lion Air.
Soon, the first TV stations began calling him. CNN and NBC always need experts when the words "Breaking News" scroll across the screen. Producers at the news channels have Moller's number saved for whenever a plane goes down and the 80-year-old lawyer is a legend among his colleagues. When it comes to representing the bereaved, no one can fool him. Airlines, airplane manufacturers, even car rental companies have come to fear him. Should the situation call for it, Moller has no problem disparaging the other side as "mass murderers." When he represented relatives of the victims of the Germanwings crash in 2015, he accused the instructors of the co-pilot, who ultimately killed himself and 149 others in a brutal murder-suicide, of not having noticed how volatile the pilot was.
A day after the crash in Ethiopia, Moller met with a senior partner from the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler on Third Avenue in Manhattan. The man's name is Justin Green, who had flown fighter jets for the Marines before becoming an attorney. By the time Moller showed up, Green had already begun analyzing the radar data from Flight 302. Now they compared it with the data from Lion Air 610. "Even before the Lion Air and ET 302 flight data recorder information was available, it was clear to us that the two events shared remarkable similarity," Moller recalls. The two lawyers had no doubt: "There was something seriously flawed and wrong with the 737 Max."
The flight paths of both planes were inexplicably wild, characterized by sharp and sudden gains and losses of altitude, as if the pilots were struggling to maintain control of their aircraft. By the end, the planes had gained so much speed and were descending so steeply that the pilots would have had to possess superhuman strength to counter the pressure on the horizontal stabilizer trim. Moller and Green from the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, specialists in catastrophes, had a case. And what a case it was.
... ... ...
Colorful, Jagged Lines
Half a world away, New York attorneys Moller and Green spread out documents showing the plane's flight path, angle of attack and speed at various points in time. The data has been entered into a coordinate system and are represented as colorful, jagged lines that only experts can interpret. For this, Moller relies on his colleague Green, though he has his own opinion of what went wrong: "We believe that the facts that emerge through litigation will demonstrate that commercial pressure, the Boeing/Airbus competition and the drive to make money and save money resulted in the 737 Max, as initially designed and sold, being an unreasonably dangerous airplane," says Moller.
The competition between Boeing and Airbus does, in fact, appear to be a key element in these two crashes. The profitability of both companies depends on but a few products, and when it comes to the most important aircraft of all, the short- and medium-haul planes, Boeing has fallen behind Airbus, Moller says, and suddenly, once-loyal Boeing customers were buying jets from Airbus, preferring the new A320 to the outdated 737. Boeing had to act quickly. But instead of designing an altogether new aircraft, Moller says, engineers continued to make changes to the old 737 design and, in the end, came up with an aircraft that was dangerously designed.
When he talks, Moller sounds like he already has the jury in front of him. He asks rhetorical questions, which he immediately answers himself, and develops an image for his audience of a plane, wobbling and shaking from faulty software run amok, with an overwhelmed crew, at far too low an altitude, much too close to the ground -- all because the aircraft was designed and built in such great haste.
"We believe that the facts that will emerge through the litigation will demonstrate that commercial pressure, the Boeing/Airbus competition and the drive to make money and save money resulted in the 737 MAX as initially designed and sold was an unreasonably dangerous airplane," says Moller.
Of course, the engineers never meant to kill anyone, Moller hastens to add. But he says they were driven by confirmation bias as they worked toward their goal. And that goal was to deliver an aircraft as quickly as possible -- one that looked new, was more fuel efficient, that airlines would want to have and that pilots could fly immediately without requiring further training.DER SPIEGEL
In the coming proceedings and investigations, particular attention will be paid to the time between the crash in Indonesia and the one in Ethiopia. This will be the most dangerous window for Boeing. If the prosecution can prove or find witnesses to say that people at Boeing or aviation regulators had cautioned against the further operation of the 737 Max after the Lion Air crash, it could make the company look extremely culpable. If anyone at Boeing had even the slightest inkling of the new system's inherent risks, things could get tricky.
Moller is confident the case can be won. In court, he plans to talk about trust, which he can already do very convincingly. "You board an airplane, sit down in seat 10C or 14F and you have no idea who the pilot is," Moller says. "You have no idea who was the last one to have messed around with the maintenance of the plane. You sit down, buckle up and you even worry about sitting upright and putting your feet in the right position. You are locked into this tube. Some are nervous, some are not. But all have to have absolute trust that everything is in order, the equipment and the people operating it. Absolutely safe. And if there is the slightest doubt about the safety of the plane by the airline: Don't fly. The plane must be grounded."
The Kreindler attorneys have already filed their first complaints with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. They chose Chicago because that's where Boeing's board of directors and corporate management is located, far from the company's production facilities in Seattle. "It was Boeing's board that approved the Boeing 737 Max project," Green says. The lawyers in New York already know who the judge will be. His name is Alonso, a youthful-looking man who was appointed under Barack Obama. "This is his first major aviation case," Green says.
Aug 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Expectations that the Boeing 737 MAX 8 will return to the skies any time in the near future have largely faded, and now, after dedicating billions of dollars to compensating customers, Boeing is finally facing their wrath in the courtroom. The FT reports that a Russian aircraft-leasing company has filed a lawsuit against the aerospace company seeking not only the return of the deposit it paid for the 35 MAX 8s that it ordered, but also punitive damages in the hundreds of millions.
Avia Capital Services, a subsidiary of Russian state conglomerate Rostec, accused Boeing of "negligent actions and decisions" that led to two deadly accidents and roughly 350 deaths. Regulators around the world grounded the 737 MAX 8 in response to the accidents, and investigations have pointed toward issues with the plane's software as the culprit.
In its lawsuit, Avia also claimed that the design of the MAX 8 was "defective", and - embracing a more conspiratorial tone - that Boeing knew about these defects bu withheld this "critical information" from US regulators and Boeing's customers. The lawsuit was filed in Cook County circuit court in Chicago, where Boeing is based.
Avia ordered 35 MAX 8s, and paid a cash deposit of $35 million to secure its order. In its lawsuit, the company is seeking the return of this deposit, along with another $75 million of lost profits plus additional punitive damages.
The company's lawyer, Steven Marks of the Miami aviation law firm Podhurst Orseck, said Boeing had offered the company compensation for the MAX 8's problems, but that this compensation was "inadequate." Marks is also representing the families of some of the victims.
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has said it's possible that the MAX 8 could be re-approved for passenger service by October. But it's entirely possible that the CEO could be jawboning to convince customers to hold off from moving ahead with lawsuits. Of course, the families of the victims who died in the two plane crashes attributed to flaws in the 737 MAX 8's anti-stall system are moving ahead with their lawsuits, even after Boeing set aside $100 million for payoffs. In the meantime, orders for new 737 MAX 8s have dried up, and if the plane isn't given the OK to return to the skies before the end of the year, it's possible that Boeing could halt production of its most popular aircraft, according to CBS News.
American firms like Southwest (the 737 MAX 8s' largest customer) have been far more understanding and willing to work with Boeing. But how much longer until their patience runs out, and they start filing lawsuits?
Though this hasn't been reflected in Boeing shares, it's still entirely possible that a flood of legal judgments could bankrupt Boeing.
jaksjohnson , 24 minutes ago linkpudknocker , 43 minutes ago link
There goes ZH again with their propaganda puff pieces. Using the term conspiratorial like most of ZH readers don't already know it was a term invented by the CIA to attack people who questioned government narratives. How pathetic. How much lower can you go? I'm guessing as long as NBC pays the bills, much lowerMariner33 , 39 minutes ago link
They also eat their own yungin's. Check out the Boeing - Ducommun corruption swept under the carpet involving the previous 737 series: https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/political-social-justice/boeing-parts-scandal.html .
Guess who won the contracts for 737 MAX spoilers/doors/inlets yada yada? Starts with D.moseybear , 40 minutes ago link
Social engineering, set asides, afearmotive ackshun, rainbow workers, etc, etc, all come at a price, less quality, inferior production, higher costs, and less safety. It's about votes from the less or not qualified, lazy, and low aptitude. America is sinking under the dead weight.Mariner33 , 20 minutes ago link
... and to that, the "Wall Street" types respond? So what? The bottom line is all that matters. When it become apparent that the value of the company is going to wane, the insiders will bailout -- well ahead of the exodus insuring their profits and/or minimizing their risks. We've been in the "investor economy" officially since 2009 and TARP. It was announced in public that some things in the planned economy are simply "too big to fail". That statement implies that all the others are simply "too small to matter". I am sure the "Wall Street" types are finding creative ways to turn this problem into just another profit center. When it comes to investing? There is no morality. The penalties for crimes by corporations are fundamentally different than for real persons.Solarstone , 37 minutes ago link
They win either way. Massively shorting Boeing earns them money just as much as if the stock goes up.Mariner33 , 21 minutes ago link
Mariner... thanks for your comment. What is your opinion, as an engineer, on the structural integrity of the MAX?pudknocker , 11 minutes ago link
There is what is KNOWN by observation and data, observation. And then there is the knowledge of METHOD, meaning a culture of neglect, sloth, deception, amorality, greed, and just not giving a ****. THAT means that the possibility or even probability of more defects and omissions are not yet known. I believe there are more structural and mechanical defects that have not seen the light of day. There are several extended interviews with fired Boinging employees who objected to violating procedures or whistle blowers who describe horrendous mistakes and improper workmanship that is actually criminal.
I believe that a certain number-provided by Boeing-should be forensically torn down to the last riot and Quality checked.simpson seers , 1 hour ago link
Initial reports from witnesses on the ground to the Ethiopian Flight ET302 crash indicated clothes and luggage were spewing out before impact: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6794233/Safety-fears-Boeing-737-Max-8-China-country-ground-jet-Ethiopian-crash.html .
That is not the result of a software or procedural error, structural failure is not to be ruled out.BorraChoom , 1 hour ago link
Russian company begins judicial process to terminate contract with Boeing
https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/08/russian-company-begins-judicial-process-to-terminate-contract-with-boeing/warsev , 1 hour ago link
Replacing American Engineers with Cheap H-1 workers.
I could really care less if Boeing dies after what they did to all their great engineers just because they were white, they are trying to shift the blame for the failure of the SJW MAX over to Whitey but the effort is largely failing because it is too obviously patently false.
Adios Gillette, Boeing, (hopefully Nike) and whoever else takes a crap on their roots including Dicks Sporting Goods, which has now posted enormous losses - I'd rather see them gone and if others stood their ground well enough, we'll see LOTS MORE get tossed in the ash bin of history.
I'll be disappointed if anyone who tries to damage our civilization further than it has already been damaged survives in business after trying.Nebuchadnezzar II , 1 hour ago link
It's interesting how the world seems to be getting along mostly OK without 737Max. Relatively few disruptions, at least from the point of view of this specimen of flying public. I'm sure the airlines have had to jump through a few hoops, but the longer the work-arounds keep working, the less need for 737MAX.noshitsherlock , 1 hour ago link
Kra-Z-Eyes, say anything for the apartheid state of israel, Nimrata Haley is on Boeing's Board of Directors with an annual salary of $315,000.00 per year 'cause she has an undergraduate degree in accounting.
Nikki Haley slams 'manipulative' Macron for inviting Zarif to G7 ... https://www.jpost.com › American-Politics › Nikki-Haley-slams-manipulati... 1 day ago - The Jerusalem Post - Israel News ... Nikki Haley slams 'manipulative' Macron for inviting Zarif to G7 ... United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley listens to a speaker during a U.N. Security Council meeting ...
Nikki Haley, who fought union effort at Boeing S.C. plant, nominated to ... https://www.seattletimes.com › business › nikki-haley-nominated-for-board-s... Feb 26, 2019 - Haley, former governor of South Carolina, fought attempts by unions to represent ... Nikki Haley, who fought union effort at Boeing S.C. plant, nominated to jet ... The New York Times, The Washington Post or Bloomberg News.
I'm from South Carolina, Nikki Haley should be hung. However, she's a slick enough politician to get re-elected.
Glad she left SC, now can **** up on an international level.
Under her leadership the roads in SC went down the tubes because she kept vetoing gas tax increases.
All the time, when we're on a particularly rough stretch, I tell my wife "Haley roads."
Aug 19, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
In a turbulent world, some things remain stable, even to an irrational degree. One example is the price of Boeing stock, which, at $329 a share as of midday August 16, has barely moved -- down just 1.6 percent -- from a year ago.
As all the world knows, in the intervening 12 months, two Boeing 737 Max jets have crashed, killing a total of 346 people. We also know that the crashes were entirely thanks to corporate management rushing through a Rube Goldberg adaptation of a half century-old design, suborning the FAA to approve untested and incompetently programmed software control features along with other irresponsible shortcuts (such as cutting the company's own test pilots out of MAX development planning and avoiding mention of the new control features in the airline pilots' manuals).
Nevertheless, neither the slaughter of passengers nor the subsequent deluge of shocking revelations have had any long-term impact on the stock price. There have indeed been short-term fluctuations in the interim, notably a sharp climb in the months following the first MAX disaster in Indonesia last October, when management's disgraceful PR spin ascribing blame to incompetent foreign pilots achieved some traction in the press.
The second crash, in March this year, and consequent worldwide grounding of the plane, led to a sharp downward move, which nonetheless leveled off at around current prices even as bad news of corporate culpability continued to seep out of the ongoing investigations. On the other hand, for anyone who cares to look, the bad news is clearly reflected in the balance sheet. The hallowed planemaker recently announced the largest quarterly loss in its history -- $2.9 billion -- thanks to a $5 billion charge relating to lost revenue on MAX sales. Overall, Boeing now owns a total equity of negative $5 billion, meaning that its liabilities exceed assets by that amount. That $5 billion charge was most certainly a drop in the bucket compared to the lawsuit settlements yet to come. Even so, Wall Street appears unworried. Analysts still rate the stock a "strong buy" by a wide margin , with a consensus estimate that it will climb some 90 points from its currently stable position in the high $320s over the next 12 months. The $2.3 billion Boeing spent buying its own stock in the first three months of this year no doubt encouraged such bullish sentiment, part of the $43 billion splurged on price-propping buybacks since 2013.
In addition, other powerful forces are hard at work to save the corporate behemoth from going into a terminal stall. Boeing, for example, is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the 30-stock index generally if misleadingly cited as a bellwether of the market as a whole, and even the entire U.S. economy. Because the Dow is weighted by price, an upward or downward move in Boeing has a significant effect on the index, which makes it a particular object of interest for the trading desks at major Wall Street players. Hence the stock is traded very actively in the "dark pools," otherwise known as "alternative trading systems," with opaque names such as JP Morgan's JPMX, operated by the big banks and major institutions as unregulated stock exchanges, courtesy of a toothless SEC.
These are ideal instruments for manipulating the market, since they don't have to show their bids and offers to the general market place as is required on regulated exchanges. As analogy, think of carpet dealers in a bazaar negotiating prices privately among themselves behind the backs of ordinary customers.
The tender regard being exhibited by big players on Wall Street is not, of course, solely for the sake of propping up the Dow. There is a lot of money directly at stake , not least in the 67 percent of the Boeing stock owned by just five giant funds, including Vanguard ($5.3 trillion in total assets) and Blackstone ($6.8 trillion). It's a sign that Boeing must keep borrowing money to stay afloat. Fortunately, thanks to low interest rates and the river of cash generated by the Federal Reserve since 2008, supplies are ready to hand. Thus on July 31, for example, Boeing borrowed a total of $5.5 billion via notes of varying maturities and interest rates taken up by major banks, including JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs -- and that was on top of $3.5 billion borrowed in late April.Making the World Safe for Oligopoly The Doctor Monopoly is Killing American Patients
Given that it may be quite a while before money starts to flow again from airlines shopping for 737s, there is undoubtedly a lot of Wall Street interest in the alternative source for emergency Boeing cash flow: a giant taxpayer bailout in the form of a Pentagon contract of suitable proportions. Fortunately, there is a vehicle for delivering the cash: the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, the Minuteman-replacement ICBM authorized by President Obama as part of his $1 trillion nuclear modernization program . It carries a price tag, gratifying to investors, of up to $100 billion -- a sum that will quite certainly be exceeded down the road.
Until very recently, the competition for this lucrative (and totally unneeded) contract was between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Given that Northrop is already enjoying a pot of modernization gold in the shape of the B-21 bomber contract, Boeing seemed a sure bet to land the deal, especially as the Air Force's detailed requirements appeared tailored to favor Boeing rather than Northrop.
But in late July, Boeing abruptly announced that it was walking away from the bidding. This was not due to a sudden reluctance to service the nuclear arms race, but rather a high-stakes effort to prod the Air Force into rewriting the cost of the competition rules, officially termed "request for proposal," so as to obviate the cost advantage enjoyed by Northrop thanks to its artful purchase last year of Orbital ATK, the only viable supplier of the solid fuel rocket engines required by the new missile. We cannot doubt that the Air Force will see the light before too long, the stakes for the system being what they are. "Too big to fail" is a term customarily applied to the colossi of Wall Street, who thus escaped the consequences of their greed and incompetence following their shredding of the global economy in the 2008 crash. As the Boeing saga outlined above illustrates, the TBTFers stick together, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayers will always be there to pick up the tab.
Andrew Cockburn is the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and the author of five nonfiction books, including Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins (2016) . He has written for The New York Times, The New Yorker, Playboy, Vanity Fair, and National Geographic, among other publications.This article was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Kenneth_Almquist Bob Wilkens • 2 hours agoWhere Boeing is at fault (as well as the FAA for letting Boeing get away with it) is for claiming that airlines didn't need to train pilots to fly the 737-MAX (as long as the pilots knew how to fly other 737 variants).polistra24 • 20 hours ago
In reality, the 737-MAX, unlike other 737 variants, was programmed to plunge nose-first into the ground if a single angle of attack sensor failed. That's a really nasty feature--in fact Boeing has conceded that the airplane shouldn't have been designed that way in the first place--and needs to be covered in training.
You point to inadequate training in undeveloped countries, which may be true as a general matter, but in this case, the training was inadequate everywhere. No pilot should have been piloting a 737-MAX until they demonstrated that they could handle the sensor failure scenario in a flight simulator. Airlines in the United States didn't provide this training because Boeing assured them they didn't have to.
I have no quarrel with the Boeing in general, but in this case the company really blew it. When Boeing came up with the concept of the 737-MAX (basically a plane that could act as a drop-in replacement for other 737 variants while carrying more passengers), it may have been reasonable to believe that this was doable. Later on in the development process, it should have been obvious that this goal wasn't completely achievable, but their may have been some "group think" effect that prevented people at Boeing from recognizing this.This is what Ike was talking about. He wasn't just bashing the closeness of military and industry and academic research, he was specifically discussing the security and laziness of cost-plus contracts.tweets21 • 13 hours agoLike the Banks, Boeing has to remain viable. Boeing will find a fall guy, and move on from there.Lehman Bros took the hit for the Banks creation of the great recession.david • 10 hours ago"It's a sign that Boeing must keep borrowing money to stay afloat."
- Right, a company that is building on house of cards...
"But in late July, Boeing abruptly announced that it was walking away from the bidding. This was not due to a sudden reluctance to service the nuclear arms race, but rather a high-stakes effort to prod the Air Force into rewriting the cost of the competition rules," -
- ....and is still able to blackmail Air Force and taxpayers for more money.
Please tell. Who is the biggest suckers here?
Aug 16, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
Two Boeing 737 MAX crashes, one in Indonesia last October and one in Ethiopia this past March, took a combined 346 lives. Steady scrutiny by the media reported internal company leaks and gave voice to sidelined ex-Boeing engineers and aerospace safety specialists. These experts have revealed that Boeing's executives are responsible because they chose to use an unstable structural design and faulty software. These decisions left the flying public, the pilots, the airlines, and the FAA in the dark, to varying degrees.
Yet Congressional Committees, which announced investigations months ago, still have not called on Dennis Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing, or any member of Boeing's Board of Directors to testify.
Given the worldwide emergency grounding of all 400 or so MAX aircraft and the peril to crews and airline passengers, why are the Senate and House Committees holding back? House Committee Chairman, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) wants to carefully prepare for such action after the staff goes through the much delayed transmission of documents from Boeing. Meanwhile, Senate Committee Chair Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) deferred to Boeing's request to put off their testimony before Congress until the Indonesian government puts out its report on the Lion Air disaster, presumably sometime in October.
Meanwhile, just about everybody in the airline industry, the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Justice Department (with its criminal probe), the transport unions, the consumer groups such as Flyers Rights, and the flying public are anxious to see top Boeing officials in the witness chair under oath answering important questions.
It is not as if Boeing lobbyists are absent. The giant company has been everywhere in Washington, D.C. getting its way for years in Congress, with NASA, the Department of Defense, and of course, the hapless, understaffed FAA. Boeing gives campaign donations to about some 330 members of Congress.
Corporate CEOs hate to testify before Congress under oath when they are in hot water. CEOs from the tobacco, drug, auto, banking, insurance, and Silicon Valley industries have all dragged their feet to avoid testifying. Eventually they all had to show up in public on Capitol Hill.
The Boeing case involves a more imminent danger. The company and its "captured" FAA want to unground the MAX as fast as possible and to get more new MAXs, under order, to the airlines.
This haste is all the more reason why Congress has to pick up the pace, regardless of "MAX Mitch" McConnell, the Kentucky dictator of the Senate who is a ward of the Boeing complex and its campaign cash. If the 737 MAX is ever allowed to fly again, with its shaky software fixes, glitches, and stitches, the pressure will build on members of Congress to go soft on the company. They will be told not to alarm millions of passengers and unsettle the airline industry with persistent doubts about the plane's prone-to-stall and other serious safety hazards from overautomation and sloppy construction, already documented in The New York Times, the Seattle Times, and other solid media reporting.
With investigations underway at civil aviation agencies all over the world, and a grand jury operating in the U.S. looking into criminal negligence, this is no time for Congress to take its time in laying open the fullest truths and facts in public. Bear in mind, apart from the civil tort law suits, all other investigations are not being conducted in public.
There is a growing consensus by impartial specialists that after many iterations of the Boeing 737 series, beginning with the 737-100 in 1967, the much larger, more elaborate Boeing 737 MAX must be seen as a new aircraft requiring full certification. Certainly that is the view of some members of Chairman DeFazio's committee and Chairman David Price's House Subcommittee on Appropriations which holds the keys to funding a much larger FAA budget to do its job as a regulator, not as a deregulator that abdicates to Boeing.
Moreover, retired airline Captain Chesley Sullenberger, in his brilliant testimony before DeFazio on June 19th, called for full simulator training for pilots before they fly the MAX on scheduled routes (read Captain Sullenberger's full statement here ).
In a precise letter to the Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao and the acting and incoming heads of the FAA (Daniel Elwell and Stephen Dickson respectively), dozens of families and friends of the victims from many countries asked for full recertification and mandatory simulator training before any decision is made about the 737 MAX. Currently 737 MAX pilots are only given an hour of iPad training -- a clearly insufficient measure and an affront to safety ( see more here ). The letter, which was sent on August 7, 2019, also called for the resignation of Ali Bahrami, the abdicator in charge of safety at the FAA.
Many decisions are coming up for the FAA and Boeing. The FAA would be very foolish to unground the 737 MAX just for U.S. airspace without the counterparts in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa concurring.
As for Boeing, the company cannot afford another one or two crashes attributed to continued indifference to longstanding aerodynamic standards of stability. The issue for Boeing's celebrity, minimally experienced Board of Directors is how long it will tolerate Boeing's management that, over the judgement of its best engineers, has brought the company to its present predicament.
How long before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Transportation or the Congress and the betrayed airlines themselves call for the resignation of both officers and the Board and, end the career conflict of interest these failed incumbents have with the future well-being of the Boeing Corporation itself?
Aug 15, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Manufacturing: "With the Boeing 737 MAX Grounded, Top Boeing Bosses Must Testify Before Congress Now" [ Ralph Nader ]. "As for Boeing, the company cannot afford another one or two crashes attributed to continued indifference to longstanding aerodynamic standards of stability.
that, over the judgement of its best engineers, has brought the company to its present predicament. How long before the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Transportation or the Congress and the betrayed airlines themselves call for the resignation of both officers and the Board and, end the career conflict of interest these failed incumbents have with the future well-being of the Boeing Corporation itself?"
Everything is like CalPERS. Ergo, Boeing is like CalPERS.
Carey , August 15, 2019 at 2:25 pm
'FAA Poised to Say Pilots Don't Need Fresh 737 Max Simulator Training':
Can't be upsetting Boeing's apple cart, no can we?
WJ , August 15, 2019 at 4:25 pm
When almost every other airline safety administration in the world decides otherwise, what will we say?
Carey , August 15, 2019 at 5:14 pm
Interesting question. I wonder how much int'l credibility and pull the FAA has these days. Thinking of China, for one.
The Rev Kev , August 15, 2019 at 6:45 pm
When they said that "The company and its "captured" FAA want to unground the MAX as fast as possible" I was thinking for a brief moment that they said that they want to "underground" the MAX as fast as possible which gave another spin on that story.
Aug 13, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
c1ue , Aug 12 2019 17:09 utc | 109More Boeing in the news:
Boeing left 787 source code on an open server - and IOActive says there are vulnerabilities .
Customers not very happy with 787 product coming out of South Carolina.
Aug 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
chu teh , Aug 3 2019 3:50 utc | 54737Max.---Boeing's Secret Nightmare.
Earlier in the 737 program, long before MCAS software addition, there were instructions for using "roller coaster " procedure to recover from stuck-stabilizer failure when excessive forces had to be overcome to use the manual correction wheel [next to each pilot's inboard knee] . At some early point, that procedure was no longer taught as there were only very rare causes of stuck/failed stabilizer that were easily handled [no MCAS software program that repeatedly forces the stabilizer to pitch-down, which counters each crew correction toward level flight].
With MCAS added to 737MAX, that "rollercoaster" procedure was neither taught nor even available in the existing simulators used for training. WHY?
Q--Well, what if it was taught? And in the manual? Then either the procedure must be added to all the existing simulators, worldwide, or new simulators designed and sold before any pilots could qualify.
Now you ask "So what?"
Kaboom! Then the real debacle would be discovered and quickly exposed to all training pilots and obxervers.
Namely, in simulator training, some male pilots would fail by not have the strength to manually turn the correcting wheel. Even more female pilots would almost certainly fail.
Recall that the wheel is next to the inboard knee of each pilot. Thus, except for ambidextrous pilots, the week arm would often be next to the wheel! [To wit: Right-handed left-seat pilot has strong arm next to wheel; but right-handed right-seat co-pilot would have weak arm next to wheel.
The 737 series was introduced in operation in late 1960s, when female commercial pilots were a rarity.
Now it is 2018, with MCAS added, how were the huge numbers of female pilots, worldwide, going to be accomodated? De-selected? A marketing nightmare!
Furthermore, without hugely expensive re-design/engineering/certification and re-training of all pilots and maintenance in brand new simulators? Well, that gives the lie to 737MAX being a routine upgrade needing just quickie updates for any 737-series pilots. And thus no sales advantages vis-a-vis Airbus ! Or Bombardier or Embraer. In fact, there would clearly be sales disadvantages including unworkable profit margins.
Besides, existing management will get rich and retire long before the problems ever appear! We can just gum it to death and let the lawyers howl and feast on billable hours. Our personal success is certain. [The hired,chief execs viewpoint, as opposed to the long-dead founder's intent.]
Aug 03, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Tomonthebeach , August 3, 2019 at 1:40 pm
Trump clearly hates being regulated, as do most bus billionaire cronies. They want to drill for oil on the White House lawn if there is potential. They would mine sulfur from Old Faithful if it was profitable.
Jul 27, 2019 | yro.slashdot.org
Boeing's 737 Max was built with "effectively neutered" oversight, writes the New York Times, citing interviews with over a dozen current and former employees at America's Federal Aviation Agency.
Their damning conclusion? The agency "had never independently assessed the risks of the dangerous software known as MCAS when they approved the plane in 2017." regulator had been passing off routine tasks to manufacturers for years, with the goal of freeing up specialists to focus on the most important safety concerns. But on the Max, the regulator handed nearly complete control to Boeing , leaving some key agency officials in the dark about important systems like MCAS, according to the current and former employees...The company performed its own assessments of the system, which were not stress-tested by the regulator.
Turnover at the agency left two relatively inexperienced engineers overseeing Boeing's early work on the system. The F.A.A. eventually handed over responsibility for approval of MCAS to the manufacturer. After that, Boeing didn't have to share the details of the system with the two agency engineers...
Late in the development of the Max, Boeing decided to expand the use of MCAS, to ensure the plane flew smoothly. The new, riskier version relied on a single sensor and could push down the nose of the plane by a much larger amount. Boeing did not submit a formal review of MCAS after the overhaul. It wasn't required by F.A.A. rules... The agency ultimately certified the jet as safe, required little training for pilots and allowed the plane to keep flying until a second deadly Max crash, less than five months after the first.... By 2018, the F.A.A. was letting the company certify 96 percent of its own work, according to an agency official.
The article ends by describing the days after the first 737 Max crash, when Boeing executives visited the regulatory agency's headquarters in Seattle.
"The officials sat incredulous as Boeing executives explained details about the system that they didn't know."
Jul 30, 2019 | finance.yahoo.com
Overall, it seems that the F.A.A. was far too differential to Boeing, reportedly treating them like "a client" and acquiescing to decisions the company made based on their budget and deadlines, instead of overseeing them more strictly.
Most damningly, Boeing never submitted the autopilot software MCAS for formal F.A.A. review, after the company began using it to fly the 737 Max, so the F.A.A. was unaware about its flaws.
Boeing has stopped producing the popular 737 Max model, which is hurting not only Boeing's bottom line but airlines as well, many of whom have been pushing for compensation for lost earnings.
Michael O'Leary, CEO of the budget airline Ryanair, is worried that if Boeing doesn't get the model working again, he might have to cut jobs, as he is not getting the amount of planes he was expecting and it's hurting his bottom line. "It may well move to 20, it could move to 10, and it could well move to zero if Boeing don't get their s--- together pretty quickly with the regulator," O'Leary reportedly said on an earnings call.
Turn out that Boeing is not the only company with worrisome autopilot software, as airlines using certain models of Airbus's A350 software have been told that they have to power down the software every 149 hours or risk "...partial or total loss of some avionics systems or functions.
Jul 29, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
737 MAX Ruder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified Kadath , Jul 28 2019 15:00 utc | 2
The return of the Boeing 737 MAX into regular service is likely to be delayed even further than we anticipated . A new New York Times piece about the deference of the Federal Aviation Administration to Boeing reveals a new technical issue that will likely require an additional refit of the aircraft.
We already knew that there was little oversight over Boeing with regards to the failed Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS):The company performed its own assessments of the system, which were not stress-tested by the regulator. Turnover at the agency left two relatively inexperienced engineers overseeing Boeing's early work on the system.
The F.A.A. eventually handed over responsibility for approval of MCAS to the manufacturer. After that, Boeing didn't have to share the details of the system with the two agency engineers. They weren't aware of its intricacies, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
Late in the development of the Max, Boeing decided to expand the use of MCAS, to ensure the plane flew smoothly. The new, riskier version relied on a single sensor and could push down the nose of the plane by a much larger amount.
Boeing did not submit a formal review of MCAS after the overhaul. It wasn't required by F.A.A. rules.
The results are well know. The single sensor failed and MCAS activated during a critical flight phase. 346 people on two flights were killed.
But MCAS is not the only system that the FAA allowed to be certified even when it could cause significant problems. The European regulator EASA identified five additional major issues that need to be fixed before the 737 MAX can again fly.
The NYT found another severe one :Early on, engineers at the F.A.A. discovered a problem with one of the most important new features of the Max: its engines. The Max, the latest version of the 50-year-old 737, featured more fuel-efficient engines, with a larger fan and a high-pressure turbine. But the bigger, more complex engines could do more damage if they broke apart midair.
The F.A.A. engineers were particularly concerned about pieces hitting the cables that control the rudder, according to five people with knowledge of the matter and internal agency documents. A cable severed during takeoff would make it difficult for pilots to regain control, potentially bringing down the jet.
The 737 MAX has newly developed LEAP-1B engines which have a larger fan at the front than the previous ones.
source - bigger
The fans are 69.4 inch (1.76m) in diameter compared to 61 inch (1.55m) on the 737 NG engines. The fan turns with 5,000 rotations per minute and the turbine with 20,000 rotations per minute (pdf). If a fan or turbine blade or disk breaks it becomes a high speed projectile that can not be contained by the engine housing.
The engines on the MAX are further forward than on previous 737 models. The debris of an uncontained engine failure would hit the plane's body in places that were previously safe. Uncontained engine failures are relatively rare but they can and do happen on all modern jet types.
Cont. reading: 737 MAX Ruder Control Does Not Meet Safety Guidelines - It Was Still Certified
Posted by b at 14:47 UTC | Comments (50) No surprises here, the corruption that runs throughout the MIC breeds a lack concern for quality control, after all why bother putting all that effort into creating a superior product when you can just bribe the regulators to approve it as it and then bribe the government to promote and buy your crappy product as is. I doubt Boeing will go under because of this though (even thought they deserve to go down in flames), the US government would remove all budget caps, super change the printing presses, threaten their allies, absolutely anything and everything to save Boeing if it came down to it.
BM , Jul 28 2019 15:07 utc | 3It gets juicier and juicier! Boeing will never fly again!snake , Jul 28 2019 15:21 utc | 4Amazing what private parties can do in revealing faults when the data is public and everyone is given access to it.Jonathan , Jul 28 2019 15:27 utc | 5
Thanks B for a great job .
What I like about the Boeing problem is that it reveals the deep corrupt nature of current corporate armies and brings into full view the result of privatization and economic Zionism . Other privatizations include the Internet, the energy providers like the power companies (the are franchised monopolies), now 5G < more dangerous than Nicotine and so on.. The private party providers have little concern for the welfare of the masses of people, unless they are maybe liable for something, that they sell to. Moreover these private parties are corrupt enough to corrupt the government oversight agencies and the members of the elected government (they call it lobbying) in order to accomplish their profits to the satisfaction of wall street. The aircraft industries responds to Wall Street, not to masses they sell to. . Yeah I know the FAA regulates but its regulations do not apply to the big guys. Big bucks can be had in contracting $100,000 per nail government contacts and flying airplanes for hire.
All airlines, and all power companies, and all communications companies from research to end user should be owned and operated by the government IMO. .#2BM , Jul 28 2019 15:33 utc | 6
Taxpayers paid ~$1.5T for the F-35, and yet the IP rights and maintenance lies solely in the hands of Lockheed Martin instead of the government. And that's not even discussing about the design shortcomings or testing fraud...
Yup, totally no corruption happening right there. The MIC is so utterly corrupt that is has hollowed out the US military so much that even the neocons feel skittish at taking on Venezuela face-on, let alone Iran.Posted by: snake | Jul 28 2019 15:21 utc | 4jared , Jul 28 2019 15:38 utc | 7
Amazing what private parties can do in revealing faults when the data is public and everyone is given access to it.
Excellent point, Snake!!
What I like about the Boeing problem is that it reveals the deep corrupt nature of current corporate armies and brings into full view the result of privatization and economic Zionism ... The private party providers have little concern for the welfare of the masses of people, unless they are maybe liable for something, that they sell to.
Private Party Providers ... very apt term for the political parties! (All of the Hegemon Inc (TM) private group, not just the US)Had this been a free market capitalist system likely Boing would have already been put out of business or would have been opperated different because of competition and risk.Stever , Jul 28 2019 15:44 utc | 8y , Jul 28 2019 15:46 utc | 9
If they are going to release this death trap to the public, in a just world it should be a requirement that all Boeing top executives and board members be required to fly on them exclusively.Is the target label shifting to the faa?y , Jul 28 2019 15:53 utc | 10
"By 2018, the F.A.A. was letting the company certify 96 percent of its own work, according to an agency official."
Many issues here. Certificators delegate to the company who delegates to money god.
Better Faa boys to look back to recently closed works.How is going to impact on 2020 elections the Boeing737 affair?Jose Garcia , Jul 28 2019 15:59 utc | 11
wowHere's my answer. Get that MCAS system out of its grounded aircraft. Or find a way to deactivate it permanently. Or risk fading into history.Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 28 2019 16:00 utc | 12...Edward , Jul 28 2019 16:20 utc | 13
There are several ways to solve the problem. Redundant steel cables could mitigate the risk. The cables could be protected by titanium tubes as they are on some military planes. Redundant electric wires that control a servo to move the hydraulic valves could be added.
The main problem is the de facto acceptance of the risk of a "liberated" turbine blade penetrating the passenger compartment. It would be better to eliminate the risk altogether by installing shields adjacent to, or within, the engine cowling to deflect loose blades. The shields wouldn't need to be more than 1/4 of the circumference of the engine and wouldn't need to be the full length of the engine - just near the turbine banks. On the other hand if/when a blade gets loose it's probably best to let it get away from the engine to prevent it from rattling around and causing more damage.
If it's more sensible to let a loose blade escape the engine ASAP then consideration should be given to beefing up the control cables to enable them to survive the impact from a flying turbine blade. And seats opposite a turbine bank could be discounted...It's sad to see all that boeing is talking about is getting the plane back in the air soonest possible.Why is boeing so reluctant on letting go of the 737.jared , Jul 28 2019 16:31 utc | 14The US government and Boing are going to collaborate to put things bac on track as soon as posible.Thirdeye , Jul 28 2019 17:00 utc | 15@Hoarsewhisperer #12Ghost Ship , Jul 28 2019 17:10 utc | 16
The failures cited in the links were on the intake fans, not the compressors. When one blade is off, the engine is functionally done as much as it would be with more blades damaged by a contained failure. If the larger radius blades of the LEAP-1B increase the risk of failure, that is an issue with the engine that goes far beyond its use on the 737 MAX.I thought jet engines were supposed to be armoured to prevent blades flying out of the engine when they fail. But armour = more weight = less profit and greed will always win out.james , Jul 28 2019 17:22 utc | 17these planes sound scary... i don't know why anyone would fly in one here forward...BM , Jul 28 2019 17:23 utc | 18
@ 5 jonathan... capitalism at its finest.. get the taxpayer to pay for all the future private profit... why not just call it socialism instead?? because all the profit only goes to a few...It's sad to see all that boeing is talking about is getting the plane back in the air soonest possible.dan of steele , Jul 28 2019 17:25 utc | 19
Posted by: Edward | Jul 28 2019 16:20 utc | 13
In a normal world with such a gross litany of Boeing failures and the multilevel scandal of FAA negligence/improper handover of regulation to the regulated/cover up of known defects/ignorance of failures known to Boeing, the Chief Executive of Boeing with his tail between his legs would not even dare speak of getting the plane back in the air quickly, the massive loss of profits notwithstanding, because of the implied lack of interest in safety.
Why is the haste to get the plane airborne not itself a scandal of massive proportions? Why are there no urgent congressional hearings about why Boeing is so neglectful of basic safety?
In my view the certification of the 737MAX - and also the 737NG - needs urgently to be irrevocably REVOKED IN ITS ENTIRETY, with an absolute prohibition on all flights until/unless the certification is started afresh absolutely from scratch und under scrupulous scrutiny. Anything less is an unaccountable neglect of safety, and puts in doubt the seriousness and validity of ALL FAA certifications.
When is there going to be a lawsuit questioning whether any FAA certification whatsoever has any legal validity, given the extreme negligence, unaccountability, fraud and incompetence?
From an insurance perspective, it would surely be possible to argue that the FAA as currently constituted is not competent to certify aircraft safety - in general - and that therefore no FAA certification carried out by the FAA on any aircraft in recent years (or for as long as the certification system and competence was broadly similar to the way it is now) is valid, and that therfore all purported insurance coverage for the aircraft is null and void.
As soon as one insurance company publicly states that its coverage of the 737MAX is null and void, the scandal is in a new ballpark.I believe one factual error was made, the fan speed of the new engines is not 20,000 rpm but rather around 5,000. the core does spin that fast but the fan, which is powered by the low pressure turbine is much slower. the fan also comes up to max speed more slowly than the core which has an almost instantaneous reaction to throttle position.BraveNewWorld , Jul 28 2019 17:26 utc | 20
all aircraft with jet engines have an area marked by vertical red lines that show the plane of the compressor blades. The chance of a fan blade coming off and severing a cable would be miniscule. I have heard stories of jet engines self destructing but in 24 years of working on fighter aircraft I never saw it nor read about it happening on any of the aircraft in the US Air Force inventory. Engines are regularly inspected and bad things very rarely happen.The government will just borrow enough money to save Boeing and make the share holders whole. The air lines that are losing money because of Boeing will be made whole as well. That is the job of the US govt these days. No executive bonus left behind.james , Jul 28 2019 17:29 utc | 21@20 bnw... yeah - socialism or something like that, in spite of all the ranting by americans of how they hate socialism..BM , Jul 28 2019 17:36 utc | 22I am pretty sure we haven't seen the end of the scandals - on the contrary, I think things are just beginning to come out. Boing (let's just stick to Boing, it seems more apt than Boeing) is a huge company with a huge number of employees, many of whom have causes for dissatisfaction. We have already seen what sort of a company it is and the attitude of its top-level management. More and more scandals are going to come out, right across the board not just 737 and not just civil aircraft, and the thus-far steady trickle will turn step by step into a heavy flow and eventually a huge gush.b , Jul 28 2019 18:05 utc | 23
We aint seen nothing yet! It's going to go "***BOING***"@dan of steelenotheonly1 , Jul 28 2019 18:18 utc | 24
You are right with the fan speed. I have now corrected that.
The chance of a fan blade coming off and severing a cable would be miniscule.
There are lots of civilian planes in the air each and every day. Even rare events happen regularly. If one searches for pictures of plane engine failure one finds plenty.
Engine failures happen too often. They are inside the chance limit of 10^9 which means that they require redundancy. No single engine failure can be allowed to bring down an airliner.
Hull or wing penetrations happen in some of the engine failure cases. United Airlines Flight 232 crashed because of that. That is why the FAA demands redundancies in control and hydraulic lines that are in danger of being hit.james | Jul 28 2019 17:29 utc | 21flankerbandit , Jul 28 2019 18:28 utc | 25yeah - socialism or something like that, in spite of all the ranting by americans of how they hate socialism..
Yes, something like that. The reasons why it is so incomprehensible to the majority of people lies in the fact that its origin was never really debated.
Ask anybody what 'National Socialism' is and note the answers. In a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized, one is looking at exactly that.
The owner class is shielded from what would spell bankruptcy
to the little people's ventures. Practically none of the
industrialists cashing in during National Socialism in
Germany was ever sent to prison.
As corporations are now writing the laws, Boeing will
receive compensation for loss of future profits. Added
to the taxpayer tab. You just wait for that announcement.
The solution to this will drive rage into the faces of those
who profit from the status quo:
Nationalize Boeing. Profits won't go to shareholders any longer, but back into public coffers and into R&D.
Alternatively, make it mandatory for legislators to exclusively use the 737 MAX for their air travels.Just a minor correction about the rotational speed of the fan. It's a maximum of 4,586 rpm, not 20,000. The higher figure is the rotating speed of the high pressure spool, known as N2.the pessimist , Jul 28 2019 18:29 utc | 26
The low pressure spool, N1, includes the fan and the low pressure turbines that drive it.
The tip speed of the fan is still enormous at this maximum speed, In excess of 420 meters per second, which is about Mach 1.2. In kmh it is over 1,500 km/hr.
Still an engine fan coming loose is a very rare occurence, but it certainly has happened on several occasions.
Critical flight control lines like rudder cables MUST be protected in any eventuality. The air regulations are quite clear on that. So yes, the bottom line is that Boeing took another shortcut and rolled the dice.
And the US regulator, the FAA, let them. It's a nightmare situation. Boeing needs to just pull the plug on the MAX and take its lumps. A clean sheet single aisle aircraft is required. There is no more room for this 50 year old design to evolve.Single engine military jet flights were banned over residential areas in ny city after an engine failure caused one to go down on a citt street and incinerate a couple of people. Mechanical things always break, maintenance checks are never perfect. "Acceptable risk" is the standard, as it must be, but the determination of what is acceptable needs to be carefully considered. In this case it was "expedient risk" as determined a party with an obvious conflict of interest inappropriately making the determination.jerichocheyenne , Jul 28 2019 18:29 utc | 27More Boeing news:the pessimist , Jul 28 2019 18:32 utc | 28
https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/boeing-drops-out-of-competition-to-replace-minuteman-iii/article_41dd9c9d-0616-523d-9e11-472b00efebaa.html"my city", not "ny city" @26foolisholdman , Jul 28 2019 18:52 utc | 29snake | Jul 28 2019 15:21 utc | 4Clueless Joe , Jul 28 2019 19:01 utc | 30All airlines, and all power companies, and all communications companies from research to end user should be owned and operated by the government IMO. .
Posted by: snake | Jul 28 2019 15:21 utc | 4
I agree entirely but I would go further. All pharmaceutical companies, Major hospitals, water supplies, roads, railways, prisons should be owned by the government too. Private pharma and hospitals NEED sick people to turn a profit. Nationalised pharma and hospitals need cures to reduce running costs. Private prisons NEED prisoners to turn a profit. Nationalised prisons can concentrate on rehabilitation and prevention of recidivism.At this point, Boeing should just let the MAX die, stop producing it, and focus on other planes. Bad situation, but in the long run, not as bad as the alternative - risking bankruptcy.foolisholdman , Jul 28 2019 19:12 utc | 31james | Jul 28 2019 17:29 utc | 21GeorgeV , Jul 28 2019 19:15 utc | 32@20 bnw... yeah - socialism or something like that, in spite of all the ranting by americans of how they hate socialism..
The old definitions of Communism and Socialism were something like :
Communism is : from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Socialism is : from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.
So this is a new definition of Socialism as far as I can see. It goes something like this: "From each according to his ......? (Oh forget it!), to each according to his greed"The Boeing 737 MAX fiasco is a perfect example of why you need strong government regulation of business. Hundreds of people have died in 737 Max crashes, that could have been and should have been prevented by prompt and strong government intervention. Turning the 737 MAX aircraft's quality control over the company was so stupid that it defies all logic. Boeing's major concern however was to cut costs and increase the company's bottom line. Because of their profits-at-all-costs decision, will now cost that firm far more financially and by reputation than it would have if they had done it right the first time. Those who claim business, if left alone and unregulated will things better and faster, need only to look at the 737 MAX fiasco to see the fallacy of that belief.foolisholdman , Jul 28 2019 19:28 utc | 33I believe that it has been standard practice in many countries to say that if the FAA certified a plane that was sufficient reason to accept it as being airworthy. Clearly this is no longer a tenable position.dan of steele , Jul 28 2019 19:33 utc | 34
Presumably European, Russian, Chinese, etc., (Probably not the British!) governments will demand that US airplanes undergo certification procedures by their own inspectors. Won't they? If not, why not?indeed the DC10 had a very serious design defect wherein all three hydraulic systems in the tail of the aircraft were vulnerable in the disk area around the tail mounted engine. that is unforgivable. what is also unforgivable is that crack in the disk assembly should have been seen during regular maintenance. wiki speaks of investigators finding penetrant dye in the crack of the failed blade. It failed after almost 18 years of service and should have been discovered much earlier.DonMc , Jul 28 2019 19:47 utc | 35
that brings up another point which is not going to set well with everyone and that is aircraft maintenance. not all airlines have the same level of seriousness when it comes to doing regular and scheduled maintenance. some don't have skilled workers, some can't afford downtime, and some just don't care. this is a known problem which can be readily verified by checking on which airlines are allowed to operate in Europe and or the US. there are so many that are not allowed you have to really ask yourself if you want to fly on some minor African or South American carriers. Already the US and European carriers are doing the minimum required...
at any rate, Boeing made a mistake with the 737 Max, the company has existed due to military contracts for so long that they have become rotten from the top down. I believe I saw a story not long ago that Boeing was buying back stock. as with any corporation their responsibility is to the shareholder. that is a damn shame but it is reality. I do not see that changing any time soon in the US of AWhere is the accountability? In our new world order, the rich, powerful, famous and well connected get a free ride. In China, the CEO would be stood against a wall and shot ... here he keeps his job and will probably get a bonus.psychohistorian , Jul 28 2019 20:31 utc | 36Thanks for the ongoing coverage of the demise of Boeing bdiv> I truly believe Boeing is going down, the lack of cash flow to impact its operations in the next 12 months is simply huge its share value has not collapse most likely due to key stakeholders agreement until now, the 1st one that dump large quantities of Boeing's shares, the share price will collapse, as of now share price is higher than one year ago which is absolutely unacceptable for the current crisis and the future lack of cash flow, the only reason it sustain at this level is a backstage agreement with key stakeholders, in other words, Wall Street corruption.
I wrote initially that this problem would take Boeing down and I still think that will be true....maybe some parts left to do MIC stuff but the rest bankrupt so they don't have to pay all they should have to for the victims of their perfidy.
@ flankerbandit who wrote
There is no more room for this 50 year old design to evolve.
I agree but want to use your age reference to add that FIAT money brought to you by the global private finance folk has been around since 1971, almost as long.
I would argue that the damage fiat money is doing to the world far surpasses the damage by Boeing which is a victim of the former
China is saying that it doesn't want to play the fiat money game of the West anymore and is forcing the West to back to money connected to things of value and associated controls.
I continue to posit that the global airplane of current Western finance is like flankerbuilt wrote
There is no more room for this 50 year old design to evolve.
It is important to notice the level of new order cancelations for 737MAX but also other Boeing planes, as soon as airlines start sensing the blood on the pool they will cancel hundreds of planes in order.
Posted by: Canthama , Jul 28 2019 20:49 utc | 37I truly believe Boeing is going down, the lack of cash flow to impact its operations in the next 12 months is simply huge its share value has not collapse most likely due to key stakeholders agreement until now, the 1st one that dump large quantities of Boeing's shares, the share price will collapse, as of now share price is higher than one year ago which is absolutely unacceptable for the current crisis and the future lack of cash flow, the only reason it sustain at this level is a backstage agreement with key stakeholders, in other words, Wall Street corruption.vk , Jul 28 2019 20:56 utc | 38
It is important to notice the level of new order cancelations for 737MAX but also other Boeing planes, as soon as airlines start sensing the blood on the pool they will cancel hundreds of planes in order.
Posted by: Canthama | Jul 28 2019 20:49 utc | 37@ Posted by: jared | Jul 28 2019 15:38 utc | 7flankerbandit , Jul 28 2019 22:27 utc | 39
But the USA is a free market capitalist country: the government is for sale, at a precise price (just because the price is undisclosed, doesn't mean there isn't one).
Supply, demand.Just a little more info about aircraft engines 'exploding' in flight.VietnamVet , Jul 28 2019 22:46 utc | 40
In April, 2018 Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, a Boeing 737-700 had a fan blade come off and one passenger was killed by flying debris, which also damaged the airplane wing. The airplane was emergency landed on the one remaining engine, the previous generation CFM56.
More info here.
The NTSB preliminary report says a fan blade [titanium] failed and heard off at the root where it attaches. The suspected cause is metal fatigue and the engine manufacturer issued a service directive for ultrasonic inspections after 20,000 landing-takeoff cycles.
An aircraft engine can even be damaged by ingesting ice, as in Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751.
Here the fan and compressor blade shapes were distorted, which caused compressor surge, where the engine is not able to invest enough air for the rpm it is turning. The result can be backfiring through the front of the engine, as on this flight, which tore both engines apart.
The crew miraculously landed the plane dead stick.
So yes, as the incident from last year shows, that fan blade letting go was totally unexpected by the manufacturer, hence the tightened maintenance schedule.
Of course this won't help if the airline skimps on maintenance, as some certainly do.Thanks for pointing out facts that corporate media ignores. Boeing and the Federal Government are at a cross roads. The transfer of wealth to the rich from the forever wars, piracy, and asset stripping is ending. The system has taken all of the surplus. Only thing left is shortening people's lifespans. Off subject or not; the Trump tweetstorm about Baltimore highlights America's basic problem. A major port on USA's East Coast but there are no working jobs left in Baltimore that can support a family. Education and healthcare collapsing. This is the future of the West if predatory capitalism isn't tamed. Boeing needs to be saved but must be regulated to serve the public good.cdvision , Jul 28 2019 23:46 utc | 41Canthama @37Grieved , Jul 29 2019 2:15 utc | 42
I wouldn't at all be surprised, indeed I take it as given, that Boeing's share price is being propped up by the US Govt directly or indirectly - via the FED for example. When it goes the stampede for the exits will be on an historic scale.@41 cdvisionSymen Danziger , Jul 29 2019 4:58 utc | 43
I always remember that line from Margin Call , when the Jeremy Irons character was accused of panicking: "Being first out the door is NOT panicking."
It will be interesting to see who's first out the door just before the stampede.Airbus gets an unfair advantage! Sanction the Europeans!james , Jul 29 2019 5:04 utc | 44@24 notheonly1.. i agree with your suggestions, but i just don't see that happening until after the empire falls..Sol Invictus , Jul 29 2019 7:47 utc | 45
@31 foolisholdman.. "So this is a new definition of Socialism as far as I can see. It goes something like this: "From each according to his greed.." that is what it looks like to me as well... except they don't call it that! the world is upside down and i find it is a lot easier to understand it when i flip everything upside down... i think i need to do what alice in wonderland did to make it all make sense..
@43 symen d... i think that has been the plan of the usa's for the longest time -screw europe one way or the other...@10 - y,w , Jul 29 2019 10:21 utc | 46
With regards to Boeing and 2020 elections, I figure not very much. Because as a beacon of liberty and free market, we abhor socialism... Chump's Maga base of neo-confederates won't be driven to the polls by serious strategic industrial issues. It's a certainty, the nativists will be fed a heavy dose of demagogic missile tweets about n*ggers, spics and socialist SJW's impeding their exceptional project. Ted Cruz and other GOP reactionaries wanted to destroy the US Export-Import Bank, one of the few remaining instruments (dating from new deal era) indispensable to fight a trade war... When linear cretinism rules the day, deplorables will perceive zugzwang as winning multi-dimensional chess. Derp.Don't even think that the US of A administration will let Boeing go down without reacting.Yeah, Right , Jul 29 2019 11:31 utc | 47
What they can do ? Accuse Airbus of corruption, put 2nd level EU directors in jail, negociate with manager a bargain sale to Boeing and profit.
They've already done such a think with many companies in the past.@37 Canthama makes an important point. In any "sensible" market Boeing stock would already be taking a hammering. But it isn't, which suggests some very underhanded collusion is taking place.vk , Jul 29 2019 12:32 utc | 48
Some people here are suggesting that it is the US government that is the hidden hand propping up Boeing as a "too big to fail" part of the MIC, and they will simply print whatever it takes to stop Boeing from collapsing.
I am cynical enough to suspect that this isn't the case.
I suspect those who are exposed to the tune of $billions are propping up Boeing until they can quietly unwind their expose. After which the company will collapse in a day - or even less - precisely because at that point they won't give a s**t about the company, or its workforce, or anyone else who relies on its products for their livelihood.
After all, that's "capitalism", isn't it?@ Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jul 29 2019 11:31 utc | 47nottheonly1 , Jul 29 2019 13:47 utc | 49
Stock is what Marx called "fictitious capital". It appears as a paper that gives you money ex nihilo .
This is achieved in two ways: rising prices of the stock itself and/or dividends. Which way (or both) is taken is all up to the company itself: e.g. Amazon doesn't pay dividends, relying exclusively on its confidence its stock prices will always go up while Apple does a combination of rising dividends and rising stock prices (buybacks).
Stock prices are unrelated to the productive health of the individual capital in question. After the coup of 2016, the usurper Brazilian government begun to liquidate extremely productive infrastructure in order to register higher profits in its annual reports to the shareholders: its stock prices almost doubled in a quesiton of days.@james | Jul 29 2019 5:04 utc | 44vk , Jul 29 2019 13:48 utc | 50
After another bad night with little sleep (6ºC in my house) I thought about the Boeing affair.
I call it an affair now, as is obviously that the status quo of this corporation is in jeopardy and the peddlers are trying to stop Boeing from sinking.
That would otherwise be called 'insider trading', correct? But the result of a sleepless night over the failing corporation brought another aspect to light.
Empires have been failing for much less than the main income source Boeing has been for the empire for a very long time. Before the advent of Airbus, who would airlines have to buy from? Ilyushin? McDonnell? Boeing had cornered the market after WWII - there was no other civilian aircraft manufacturer in the West that could produce its numbers.
With this income source now definitely gone - and without TPP that would force treaty members to buy Boeing, or else - the US Titanic is listing faster than a turning iceberg. Especially in the light of the now old news, that China has started to 3D print main components for its own domestic aircraft. And on top of it, the Russians are joining the program for the rapid manufacturing of Boeing replacements.
Iran won't buy any either. Nor Venezuela, or Syria. Only the US dependents in the West will still buy Boeing. Therefore I am convinced that the implications of this reckless public transportation manufacturer's utter failure will shake the foundations of the empire towards rubble.
Another important aspect is - looking at the Chinese High Speed rail network, created in no time at all - NOW would be the time to lay the tracks from New York to L.A. From Chicago to Dallas. Another commenter linked the RT article about the continuous high speed rail track layer. A simple calculation will reveal that they are doing upwards of ten kilometer per day - seven days a week.
Plus, it is not that airplanes are flying for free either, so the energy calculation for high speed is not as bad as defenders of the stinking status quo will make anybody believe. A train is the most efficient transportation modus possible. Even when it goes really, really fast.Boeing Engineer Opens Up: 'My Family Won't Fly on a 737 Max'
Jul 19, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Harry , 17 July 2019 at 03:27 PMI saw this piece which I think explained what happened at Boeing.semiconscious said in reply to Harry... , 17 July 2019 at 03:27 PM
For what little my opinion is worth, many of the problems in the West have originated in our business schools. They are a curse. Its not too late to shut them all down, and redistribute the curricula to other departments.
great article. a quote:John Minehan said in reply to semiconscious... , 18 July 2019 at 09:01 AM
"According to Boeing's annual reports, in the last five years Boeing diverted 92% of operating cash flow to dividends and share buybacks to benefit investors. Since 1998, share buybacks have consumed $70 billion, adjusted for inflation. That could have financed several entire new airplane models, with money left over for handsome executive bonuses..."to be a devil's advocate, would doing that have made business sense? Would demand have supported the new models? Was there a technological reason to bring in new models that would create their own demand?Bill H -> John Minehan... , 18 July 2019 at 09:50 AMYes, there was. The 737MAX should have been a new model, rather than bandaids placed on an existing model which is what it was.John Minehan said in reply to Harry... , 18 July 2019 at 08:58 AM
Graduate Business Schools have emphasized ethics since at least the S&L Scandals in the 1980s.The Twisted Genius -> Harry... , 18 July 2019 at 12:20 PM
It is at least arguable if the effort has produced any results.It goes far beyond the schools. It's the overarching Western business philosophy. I had to take one business course for ROTC. The central message from day one was that the business of business is to make money. A lot of us found this sleazy and disconcerting, but we never harbored dreams of being massively rich. This is in line with what semiconscious said below about Boeing maximizing dividends and share buybacks. They may talk about building fantastic aircraft, but that's just talk. They'll build the cheapest product they can in order to maximize profits. It wasn't always this way. The idea of offering a quality product for a fair price was once far more than a marketing slogan. It was a time when craftsmen, manufacturers and service providers stood behind their work as a matter of honor and pride. It is a philosophy of "being a man for others" for the business world.JJackson said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 18 July 2019 at 01:44 PM"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: make the best quality goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." Henry Ford.Eric Newhill said in reply to JJackson... , 18 July 2019 at 02:11 PM
"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: make goods at the lowest cost possible, paying the lowest wages possible." Ver. 2.0 (current)JJackson,begob said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 19 July 2019 at 12:02 AM
That's just one side of the equation.It's labor's role to negotiate for the highest salary possible.
Consumers make decisions on a matrix of considerations that includes price (lowest possible), but also highest quality.
All of these tensions between and within the different players result in the right mix of quantity, quality, price, etc.
Or we could have AOC deciding what we're going to get and at what price.
Life is messy.Labour might fill its role better if it wasn't hemmed in by pesky regulations that hinder its right of association.Eric Newhill said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 18 July 2019 at 02:06 PMTGG,The Twisted Genius -> Eric Newhill... , 18 July 2019 at 11:21 PM
Then how come cars have been getting increasingly safe (accident survivability), more fuel efficient, better handling, etc?Eric, government safety and fuel efficiency regulations have something to do with that but that's clearly not the only reason. These companies are improving engineering, designing and manufacturing all the time. Getting the reputation of producing nothing but cheap crap is not good for the bottom line. However, this isn't always for the best. VW made a decision about a decade ago to "cheap out" on its cars in the US market. The difference was noticeable, but it was a marketing success. Most US buyers preferred the cheaper price over better features and materials.Harry said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 18 July 2019 at 02:14 PMProbably. Boeing's engineering standards were once extremely high. It was the foundation of their long running success. For the last 20 years the management have been extracting value by under-investing. Not building a new aircraft and going with the software solution for the 737 Max saved a huge amount of money, or at least would have if the process hadn't been mismanaged/misconceived. However, making the the product subservient to the business is not a path to longterm success. Its a path to increasingly bad planes.VietnamVet , 17 July 2019 at 07:45 PM
In many industries, CEOs can can make +USD100mn. When these kinds of sums are involved we shouldnt be surprised if decisions are made which prioritizes the short term over the long term.Walrus,Bill H -> VietnamVet... , 18 July 2019 at 09:53 AM
My Dad and Brother-in-Law worked at Boeing. I am not disinterested. My Brother-in-law who is also Vietnam Veteran and retired told me that the 737 Max catastrophes are directly due to the takeover of Boeing by McDonnell Douglas executives in 1997. Boeing, just like Intel, U.S. Steel or Toys R Us, was seized by financiers who could care less about the business and milked it of all its value. Money that should have been used designed a new single aisle passenger airliner instead was used to pay executive bonuses and increase shareholder value by stock buybacks. Due to this de-industrialization policy the USA is now an empty shell of the nation that I grew up in. The only thing rising is the number of billionaires up to 680 led by Jeff Bezos.
If Congress had not deregulated aviation and let Boeing employees certify the safety of the aircraft, FAA inspectors, who once were paid by taxpayers, more likely than not would have pointed out that the 737 Max flight control system which could nose dive the airplane into the ground by regulation requires three or more sensors not one.
Boeing in order to survive as North America's aircraft manufacturer must be able to sell single aisle passenger aircraft in East Asia. Dennis Muilenburg should know this. Clearly the Trump Administration doesn't. Boeing's future depends on getting the 737 Max re-certified by the Civil Aviation Administration of China. This will take time and could cost billions of dollars. If not, the US aviation industry will wither away. The new Cold War, unless ended, will force the formation of two global economic blocks, once again, except this time China will have all the manufacturing expertise and industry.FAA inspectors would have required a different airplane, one in which flight stability was inherent in the airframe and not faked by means of software.blue peacock said in reply to VietnamVet... , 18 July 2019 at 12:00 PM
"Boeing, just like Intel, U.S. Steel or Toys R Us, was seized by financiers who could care less about the business and milked it of all its value. Money that should have been used designed a new single aisle passenger airliner instead was used to pay executive bonuses and increase shareholder value by stock buybacks. Due to this de-industrialization policy the USA is now an empty shell of the nation that I grew up in."Lars -> blue peacock... , 18 July 2019 at 03:51 PM
Yes, this financialization of our economy over the past 40 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses has hollowed out our economy and financed the technology transfer to China strengthening the totalitarian CCP.
With the focus on financial asset inflation that primarily benefits the top 1% we now have the worst wealth inequality in a century. Even worse the degree of systemic debt and unfunded liabilities are gargantuan. The middle classes and working classes will be further shredded as the debt load continues to depress productivity growth and monetary & fiscal policies become even more extreme. If we thought the political conflict we have seen so far is bad, we ain't seen nothing yet!
Ray Dalio, the Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater, one of the largest hedge funds recently penned a note on "paradigm shifts", which is well worth a read."There's a saying in the markets that "he who lives by the crystal ball is destined to eat ground glass." While I'm not sure exactly when or how the paradigm shift will occur, I will share my thoughts about it. I think that it is highly likely that sometime in the next few years, 1) central banks will run out of stimulant to boost the markets and the economy when the economy is weak, and 2) there will be an enormous amount of debt and non-debt liabilities (e.g., pension and healthcare) that will increasingly be coming due and won't be able to be funded with assets. Said differently, I think that the paradigm that we are in will most likely end when a) real interest rate returns are pushed so low that investors holding the debt won't want to hold it and will start to move to something they think is better and b) simultaneously, the large need for money to fund liabilities will contribute to the "big squeeze." At that point, there won't be enough money to meet the needs for it, so there will have to be some combination of large deficits that are monetized, currency depreciations, and large tax increases, and these circumstances will likely increase the conflicts between the capitalist haves and the socialist have-nots .
The opioid crisis, Trumpism are all symptoms of the deleterious effects of financialization. Demagogues from both the left & right are in our political future as large segments of our population experience significant stress as their standard of living comes under increasing pressure. Note that the bottom 50% only have 1% of the financial assets.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/paradigm-shifts-ray-dalio/Ray Dalio is also looking at some aspects of MMT and if it works, that is wonderful. If it does not, it can make things even worse. Where many agree with Mr. Dalio, is that the current financial system is working less and less. Boeing and others are a symptom of that.Jack -> Lars... , 18 July 2019 at 10:24 PM
My wife was not sure why I insisted over the last decade that we use paper profits from Wall Street to buy diamonds, gold, silver and such. She does like wearing it now and then.LarsChiron , 17 July 2019 at 07:54 PM
We've been living MMT for the past decade. Just look at the scale of monetization in Europe, Japan, Switzerland and the US in that period. Now in the "greatest economy in history" with the stock market at all time highs, see how the yield curve looks with the Fed readying rate cuts and $13 trillion of sovereign debt with negative yields and swap spreads negative. Isn't it incredulous that Italian 10yrs yield less than 10yr Treasuries and Argentina can issue 100yr bonds?
If MMT works, why after trillions in monetization does semiconductor and auto sales on a YoY basis decline and why does Singapore print negative economy and German industrial production decline?Boeing buying Embraer regional airliner division and merging with its commercial airliner sector recently looked like as a desperate move, Embraer is world leader in the regional airliner market and is famous for being efficient, Boeing is hoping of being saved by Brazilian engineers.Lars , 17 July 2019 at 07:55 PMThanks for your very informative post. I am not all that surprised that Boeing is in their deserved trouble. Most big US companies have a senior management well removed from reality. Many years ago, when I was in the trucking business, we suddenly got a lot of trips hauling refrigerators back to various GE factories, due to a faulty compressor they had installed. The repair guys in the field soon found them to be faulty. It took one and a half years for that information to reach senior management, resulting in a lot of units made with a problem. Since airplanes are a lot more complicated, what happened should be expected.adrian pols , 17 July 2019 at 09:43 PM
It will take more than $100M to remedy this.The 737MAX will probably never fly passengers again. It's Kludge and they knew it. So does the rest of the aviation world. Maybe the earlier 737s will live on, but this Turducken has been thoroughly exposed and other aircraft will fill the niche Boeing tried wedging this into.James O'Neill , 17 July 2019 at 10:47 PMIn many ways Boeing is a metaphor for modern America. Started out with such promise, reached a peak, and since then steadily downhill while others (competitors) thrive. Part of the tragedy is that the majority fail to see the reality and will continue down the same destructive path.Mathias Alexander , 18 July 2019 at 02:47 AMIs it true that executives are legaly required to act in this way because it is in the interests of its shreholders?John A said in reply to Mathias Alexander... , 18 July 2019 at 04:06 AMNo, that myth was started by Milton Friedman.John Minehan said in reply to John A... , 18 July 2019 at 09:45 AMActually, it is a bit more complex than that.LA Sox Fan -> John Minehan... , 18 July 2019 at 03:10 PM
Yes, executives have a duty of loyalty to the company (and, by extension, to its owners, the shareholders).
More to the point, Boards have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of a company, which much predates Milton Friedman's 1970 article in the New York Times Magazine. Corporate law is, by and large, state law in the state of incorporation, now mostly Delaware and New York for publicly traded corporations.
Precedents from Michigan from about 100 years ago began to establish that a Board's fiduciary duty involves maximizing corporate profits. Based on this, it became part of the broader legal theory of the corporation that this was a key duty of boards in the 1920s and 1930s. By the 1940s and early 1950s, beginning with closely-held corporations and later OTC traded corporations, lawyers like Joseph Flom and Martin Lipton contended mightily over shareholder derivative suits in the New York courts.
One of the things that came out of these suits is the business judgement rule that presumes that HOW the board maximizes shareholder value is left to the business judgement of the board, who are (ideally) chosen for business acumen and savvy.
With a publicly traded corporation, a shareholder can fairly freely sell their shares if the return is insufficient (portfolio theory). However, most people do not monitor a corporation in which they own stock like they owned the business (even though, legally, they do, or at least a small part of it). Boards have a fiduciary duty to shareholder to protect their interests (largely, but not exclusively, by maximizing return), which makes sense especially because stocks are often held by the endowments of charities, pension funds and other vulnerable parties.
Put in extreme terms, a Board, which concentrates on corporate grand strategy, could put a lot of money into R&D to reap future profits by disrupting the market at cost of current returns. But that COULD be challenged. The more common approach today would be to acquire new technology to disrupt the market by acquiring a smaller company with promising tech but not risking current returns by doing expensive in-house R&D which might not show any return.Actually, under Delaware corporate law, directors are required to "maximize shareholder value." That doesn't mean increase profits. It gives directors a lot of discretion under the business judgment rule.blue peacock said in reply to Mathias Alexander... , 18 July 2019 at 12:15 PM
That being said, directors are elected by the shareholders. Shareholders will vote for the directors who will raise the stock price so that those who already own stock will profit. Thus, we have corporations taking out billion dollar loans to purchase stock, which increases the current stock price for current shareholders, but puts future shareholders in debt. In sum, the drive to increase shareholder value leads to the cannibalization of the corporation.Executives act in their self-interest. Their compensation packages are tied to stock price which is how they make the real big bucks. Not salary. Hence, why financial engineering is what they do. GE is the poster child and Jack Welch the epitome of the "great" CEO. It doesn't matter if the business survives and if long-term shareholders (the pension funds, 401K plans and mutual funds) lose value. After all it is OPM.John Minehan said in reply to blue peacock... , 18 July 2019 at 02:20 PMWelch is an interesting case.LA Sox Fan -> John Minehan... , 18 July 2019 at 09:09 PM
Peter Drucker, the management gaon, used to say that Reg Jones was the greatest CEO he worked with in his long career because Jones could pick someone very different from himself as CEO who better fit the times.
However, those traits were apparently conspicuously absent in Welch, who picked a successor not obviously suited to the times while Welch himself hung on too long even as the world changed around him (he didn't notice, for example, that GE Capital, a major source of GE's profits in the 1980s and 1990s, became a potential liability by the early 2000s).
Not everyone has the self-awareness that Jones had. Not everyone can read the tea leaves well enough to know, " now it's time for something completely different."
Welch was tough, unsentimental and perfectly suited to the demanding business environment of the 1980s and 1990s. He made the changes that had to be made early and voluntarily and GE did far better than other companies like IBM and GM that didn't.
But it seems that Welch didn't realize that being right for one period isn't enough.GE became a finance company that had a manufacturing side business under Welsh. He also moved that manufacturing to China and forced GE's subcontractors to move manufacturing there too. That financial business that Welsh created has ruined GE and it currently is close to bankruptcy.John Minehan said in reply to blue peacock... , 18 July 2019 at 02:26 PMWhich is Friedman's point.John Minehan , 18 July 2019 at 09:56 AM
If executives can spend shareholder's money of furnishings and charitable contributions, rather than maximizing shareholder's returns, they will. Keep them from doing so.
The big question is: "How?"
As lord Keynes said, "In the long term, we are all dead." The US, with its short term orientation has generally out performed Japan with its long term orientation. It is possible, but not yet determined, that the same is true of the PRC.I think modern approaches to corporate governance are an improvement on what went before. I also think a less intrusive regulatory structure abets growth and innovations.ex-PFC Chuck , 18 July 2019 at 10:43 AM
However, laws (and things like the business judgement rule) have tended to restrict things like shareholder derivative suits, which I think limits a more effective check on the system.
If anything, it might make sense to take things that boards tend to get wrong (e.g., capitalization decisions by boards of financial institutions, as with the Great Recession and the S&L Crisis) out of the ambit of the business judgement rule and put the burden on the board to prove there decisions were reasonable. It does not tell the Board what decision to make, but pointedly tells them that they bear the liability if they did not consider it carefully.The root cause of all this is the out-of-control financial sectors of the western industrialized societies, and most especially that of the USA. The go-to source for understanding this is the life work of economist and economic historian Michael Hudson who, in his 80th year, is still very much at the top of his game. Hudson has studied economic history from ancient Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago to the present, and he asserts that in societies that use money the financial sectors that emerge to do basic, necessary functions such as processing transactions and lending money for short term needs inevitability become ever more parasitic, thus weakening societies from within, unless they develop active measures for preventing this. Many Mesopotamian societies of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE accomplished this for extended periods with periodic debt relief programs. This is the topic of Hudson's most recent book . . and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year.John Minehan said in reply to ex-PFC Chuck... , 18 July 2019 at 02:31 PM
Two of Hudson's many books are crucial to understanding how this has played out since early in the 20th century. The first is Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance, 2003 Edition , which describes the financial aspects of US foreign policy which since the First World War enabled the US to supplant the overt colonialism of the Western European with a more stealthy financial colonialism centered on the USA. The book was originally published in 1972 and substantially updated in 2003. One thing that becomes apparent from this history even though it's not directly brought out by Hudson, is that the refugees who have been so effectively used by Trump to distract his base from the fact he, like all 20th century presidents except Franklin Roosevelt, shy away from confronting the titans and minions of Wall Street. And even FDR limited the scope of his New Deal programs to those that affected the financial sector's domestic predation; he was fully on board with what it did abroad.
The other book at the top of the Hudson must-read list is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy , published in 2015. In it he discusses how many of the causal factors cited in other comments that have hollowed out Boeing and many other companies can be traced back to the malign imperatives of the financial sectors of the western industrialized countries.
For a convenient introduction to Hudson's thought, below are links to transcripts of two recent interviews of him by Bonnie Faulkner of the Guns And Butter podcast which provide a pretty good overview of his body of work.
Super Imperialism : https://amzn.to/2XX9cHr
Killing the Host : http://amzn.to/2wuiYEP"periodic debt relief programs"ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to John Minehan... , 18 July 2019 at 07:04 PM
"Comes the Jubilee?"
Well, given its Halachic roots hardly a radical or socialist solution, but does it undermine people's willingness to loan money to strangers (which was not the case in Ancient Israel, Ancient Mesopotamia or modern Islamic nations with a Hawiya/Islamic lending system)?Most of what Hudson writes about in and forgive them their debts - the late 4th through the mid 2nd millennia - predates the coalescence of the Jewish identity and religion. He is said to be working on a sequel to that book that will address attitudes toward periodic debt relief from the late 2nd millennium up through Greek, Roman & early Christian times.ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to ex-PFC Chuck... , 18 July 2019 at 05:57 PM
Not all types of debt were relieved in ancient Mesopotamia, only those which if unforgiven posed a threat to the establishment, which in that era was usually the political and religious authority combined in the person of the monarch/high priest. These were typically debts owed by free holders who were available to be called upon to put aside their plows when necessary to defend the city or state. Often the debts were owed directly to the temple/government and were forgiven every 25 or 50 years, or upon the ascent of a new occupant of the throne.I neglected to mention that the full text of the 2003 edition of Super Imperialism is available as a PDF download from Hudson's personal website. Here's the link:turcopolier , 18 July 2019 at 01:34 PM
TTGThe Twisted Genius -> turcopolier ... , 18 July 2019 at 03:10 PM
A few things I learned in my ten years in international business. 1. The business of business is making money, not the products. They are just the means for making money.. 2. Resources are not free as they are in government. Someone has to pay for them. 3. Transactions are where you make money if you do. Infrastructure; factories, people, company towns or country clubs, etc. should be taken down as soon as the transactions that they support are no longer making money. 4. There are profit centers and there are cost centers. Remember that. I hated business just like the banker Claude Devereux hated it in my books but like him I was good at it. TTG, you should have been a priest or a crusader warrior monk.For over six years I felt I had a calling to become a Maryknoll missionary priest. I even went to a future priest summer camp at Stockbridge, MA run by the Marionists. Then the hormones kicked in. I became a Special Forces officer instead.John Minehan , 18 July 2019 at 02:38 PMCOL (R) Lang, well said. As my Corporate Finance Prof put it: "(1) Cash is good; (2) the balance sheet is crap: and (3) their ain't no such thing as a free lunch."John Minehan , 18 July 2019 at 02:40 PM
As for your item (4), never forget you can always sell the PPE and mitigate losses to meet new (and, often, reduced) needs, Mitt Romney mastered this in East Coast M&A.Your 4 points are true and concise enough, I'd like to share them with some people, with or without attribution, as you prefer.johnf , 18 July 2019 at 05:02 PMTalking of warrior priests, here is a story of unofficial action taken by priests and Catholics in The Philippines to stop the ruinous drug wars between Dutarte and the drug barons:turcopolier , 18 July 2019 at 06:31 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/18/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-war-on-drugs-catholic-churchTTGThe Twisted Genius -> turcopolier ... , 18 July 2019 at 07:39 PM
I considered being a priest for a about a week when I was ten. Sadly, my long search for universal meaning in the Church came to the end when I realized that the senior clergy that I had long dealt with as an invested member of a papal order of chivalry had always been lying to me about their state of grace with regard to sex.I was lucky to Father James F. O'Dea as the pastor of our Church for as long as I lived there. He grew up in nearby Waterbury and was a Navy chaplain in the Pacific during the war. He was of that rare breed of men of high honor, morals, courage and compassion. We had an abnormally high concentration of that breed in my hometown. Father O'Dea told us the story of how some young seminarians asked him how they could stifle normal sexual urges. Father O'Dea told them he had no idea and that he would love to know if they ever found out how to do so. I didn't become jaded until I saw what caliber of men infest most of the world. Oh well. FIDO.akaPatience , 18 July 2019 at 10:51 PMWe own Boeing stock. Even though the price hasn't dipped as much as I expected in the wake of the 2 crashes, I've soured on the company and have wanted to sell to cut our losses. But while I'm a worrier, my eternally-optimistic husband wants to hold on especially now that Boeing has announced a $5 billion earnings hit, thereby finally putting a number to its [presumed] liability and thus ending some degree of fear and speculation. He may be right. We shall see.turcopolier , 19 July 2019 at 12:36 AM
Besides this, one of his brothers was a Navy pilot and blames poor training for the crashes. He thinks African and Asian pilots (except for Singapore) generally aren't as well trained as American pilots.TTGturcopolier , 19 July 2019 at 12:37 AM
You are making excuses for men who have broken their vow of chastity.JMturcopolier , 19 July 2019 at 12:41 AM
Feel free to do so.JM
That is true of you want to sell or liquidate the business. I suppose you know that you can sell the business entity with its book, etc. Or, you can sell the assets.
Jun 30, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Colin Todhunter via Counterpunch.org,
A special report in the Observer newspaper in the UK on 23 June 2019 asked the question: Why is life expectancy faltering? The piece noted that for the first time in 100 years, Britons are dying earlier. The UK now has the worst health trends in Western Europe.
Aside from the figures for the elderly and the deprived, there has also been a worrying change in infant mortality rates. Since 2014, the rate has increased every year: the figure for 2017 is significantly higher than the one in 2014. To explain this increase in infant mortality, certain experts blame it on 'austerity', fewer midwives, an overstrained ambulance service, general deterioration of hospitals, greater poverty among pregnant women and cuts that mean there are fewer health visitors for patients in need.
While all these explanations may be valid, according to environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason, there is something the mainstream narrative is avoiding. She says:
"We are being poisoned by weedkiller and other pesticides in our food and weedkiller sprayed indiscriminately on our communities. The media remain silent."
The poisoning of the UK public by the agrochemical industry is the focus of her new report – Why is life expectancy faltering: The British Government has worked with Monsanto and Bayer since 1949 .
What follows are edited highlights of the text in which she cites many official sources and reports as well as numerous peer-reviewed studies in support of her arguments. Readers can access the report here .Toxic history of Monsanto in the UK
Mason begins by offering a brief history of Monsanto in the UK. In 1949, that company set up a chemical factory in Newport, Wales, where it manufactured PCBs until 1977 and a number of other dangerous chemicals. Monsanto was eventually found to be dumping toxic waste in the River Severn, public waterways and sewerage. It then paid a contractor which illegally dumped thousands of tons of cancer-causing chemicals, including PCBs, dioxins and Agent Orange derivatives, at two quarries in Wales – Brofiscin (80,000 tonnes) and Maendy (42,000 tonnes) – between 1965 and 1972.
Monsanto stopped making PCBs in Anniston US in 1971 because of various scandals. However, the British government agreed to ramp up production at the Monsanto plant in Newport. In 2003, when toxic effluent from the quarry started leaking into people's streams in Grosfaen, just outside Cardiff, the Environment Agency – a government agency concerned with flooding and pollution – was hired to clean up the site in 2005.
Mason notes that the agency repeatedly failed to hold Monsanto accountable for its role in the pollution (a role that Monsanto denied from the outset) and consistently downplayed the dangers of the chemicals themselves.
In a report prepared for the agency and the local authority in 2005 but never made public, the sites contain at least 67 toxic chemicals. Seven PCBs have been identified, along with vinyl chlorides and naphthalene. The unlined quarry is still leaking, the report says:The duplicity continues
"Pollution of water has been occurring since the 1970s, the waste and groundwater has been shown to contain significant quantities of poisonous, noxious and polluting material, pollution of waters will continue to occur."
Apart from these events in Wales, Mason outlines the overall toxic nature of Monsanto in the UK. For instance, she discusses the shockingly high levels of weedkiller in packaged cereals. Samples of four oat-based breakfast cereals marketed for children in the UK were recently sent to the Health Research Institute, Fairfield, Iowa, an accredited laboratory for glyphosate testing. Dr Fagan, the director of the centre, says of the results:
"These results are consistently concerning. The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person's glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people). "
According to Mason, the European Food Safety Authority and the European Commission colluded with the European Glyphosate Task Force and allowed it to write the re-assessment of glyphosate. She lists key peer-reviewed studies, which the Glyphosate Task Force conveniently omitted from its review, from South America where GM crops are grown. In fact, many papers come from Latin American countries where they grow almost exclusively GM Roundup Ready Crops.
Mason cites one study that references many papers from around the world that confirm glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup are damaging to the development of the foetal brain and that repeated exposure is toxic to the adult human brain and may result in alterations in locomotor activity, feelings of anxiety and memory impairment.
Another study notes neurotransmitter changes in rat brain regions following glyphosate exposure. The highlights from that study indicate that glyphosate oral exposure caused neurotoxicity in rats; that brain regions were susceptible to changes in CNS monoamine levels; that glyphosate reduced 5-HT, DA, NE levels in a brain regional- and dose-related manner; and that glyphosate altered the serotoninergic, dopaminergic and noradrenergic systems.
Little wonder, Mason concludes, that we see various degenerative conditions on the rise. She turns her attention to children, the most vulnerable section of the population, and refers to the UN expert on toxicity Baskut Tuncak. He wrote a scathing piece in the Guardian on 06/11/2017 on the effects of agrotoxins on children's health:Warnings ignored
"Our children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It's on their food and in their water, and it's even doused over their parks and playgrounds. Many governments insist that our standards of protection from these pesticides are strong enough. But as a scientist and a lawyer who specialises in chemicals and their potential impact on people's fundamental rights, I beg to differ. Last month it was revealed that in recommending that glyphosate – the world's most widely-used pesticide – was safe, the EU's food safety watchdog copied and pasted pages of a report directly from Monsanto , the pesticie's manufacturer. Revelations like these are simply shocking.
" Exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes, and cancer. Because a child's developing body is more sensitive to exposure than adults and takes in more of everything – relative to their size, children eat, breathe, and drink much more than adults – they are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals. Increasing evidence shows that even at "low" doses of childhood exposure, irreversible health impacts can result.
" In light of revelations such as the copy-and-paste scandal, a careful re-examination of the performance of states is required. The overwhelming reliance of regulators on industry-funded studies, the exclusion of independent science from assessments, and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change."
It is a travesty that Theo Colborn's crucial research in the early 1990s into the chemicals that were changing humans and the environment was ignored. Mason discusses his work into endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), man-made chemicals that became widespread in the environment after WW II.
In a book published in 1996, 'The Pesticide Conspiracy', Colborn, Dumanoski and Peters revealed the full horror of what was happening to the world as a result of contamination with EDCs.
At the time, there was emerging scientific research about how a wide range of man-made chemicals disrupt delicate hormone systems in humans. These systems play a critical role in processes ranging from human sexual development to behaviour, intelligence, and the functioning of the immune system.
At that stage, PCBs, DDT, chlordane, lindane, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, toxaphene, heptachlor, dioxin, atrazine+ and dacthal were shown to be EDCs. Many of these residues are found in humans in the UK.
Colborn illustrated the problem by constructing a diagram of the journey of a PCB molecule from a factory in Alabama into a polar bear in the Arctic. He stated:
"The concentration of persistent chemicals can be magnified millions of times as they travel to the ends of the earth... Many chemicals that threaten the next generation have found their way into our bodies. There is no safe, uncontaminated place. "
Mason describes how EDCs interfere with delicate hormone systems in sexual development. Glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and a nervous system disruptor. She ponders whether Colborn foresaw the outcome whereby humans become confused about their gender or sex.
She then discusses the widespread contamination of people in the UK. One study conducted at the start of this century concluded that every person tested was contaminated by a cocktail of known highly toxic chemicals that were banned from use in the UK during the 1970s and which continue to pose unknown health risks: the highest number of chemicals found in any one person was 49 – nearly two thirds (63 per cent) of the chemicals looked for.Corruption exposed
Mason discusses corporate duplicity and the institutionalised corruption that allows agrochemicals to get to the commercial market. She notes the catastrophic impacts of these substances on health and the NHS and the environment.
Of course, the chickens are now coming home to roost for Bayer, which bought Monsanto. Mason refers to attorneys revealing Monsanto's criminal strategy for keeping Roundup on the market and the company being hit with $2 billion verdict in the third 'Roundup trial'.
Attorney Brent Wisner has argued that Monsanto spent decades suppressing science linking its glyphosate-based weedkiller product to cancer by ghost-writing academic articles and feeding the EPA "bad science". He asked the jury to 'punish' Monsanto with a $1 billion punitive damages award. On Monday 13 May, the jury found Monsanto liable for failure to warn claims, design defect claims, negligence claims and negligent failure to warn claims.
Robert F Kennedy Jr., another attorney fighting Bayer in the courts, says Roundup causes a constellation of other injuries apart from Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma:
"Perhaps more ominously for Bayer, Monsanto also faces cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer's, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, kidney disease, and inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts. Strong science suggests glyphosate is the culprit in the exploding epidemics of celiac disease, colitis, gluten sensitivities, diabetes and non-alcoholic liver cancer which, for the first time, is attacking children as young as 10.
In finishing, Mason notes the disturbing willingness of the current UK government to usher in GM Roundup Ready crops in the wake of Brexit. Where pesticides are concerned, the EU's precautionary principle could be ditched in favour of a US-style risk-based approach, allowing faster authorisation.
Rosemary Mason shows that the health of the UK populations already lags behind other countries in Western Europe. She links this to the increasing amounts of agrochemicals being applied to crops. If the UK does a post-Brexit deal with the US, we can only expect a gutting of environmental standards at the behest of the US and its corporations and much worse to follow for the environment and public health.
Sinophile , 54 minutes ago linkStormblessed , 1 hour ago link
If a chemical is deadly to a plant, it could not possibly be deadly to anything else. Right?
******* idiots. This comment section is full of ******* idiots.
Check out this clip from the CBC:
Anyway, it ain't just glyphosates. We live in a toxic world today. They sicken us with their chemicals and then reap profit from their pharmaceuticals used to treat our symptoms. Never a cure. No profit in that. Keep us alive and sick and using their pharmaceuticals to mask the symptoms. Die before you can collect SS. That's the plan.kbohip , 4 hours ago link
Noise. People live for roughly 80 years, big deal. That's way longer than in the '50's or earlier.AGuy , 3 hours ago link
Blaming glyphosate, which has been used for decades for a decline in life expectancy that began only in 2014 doesn't make any sense. If glyphosate really was that cancer causing, it would have led to a decline decades ago I would think. That being said, I have a bunch of hard to kill weeds in my backyard (not in the lawn) that I want to get rid of. One in particular is a real problem as it's not actually a weed but a plant that was put in before I moved here. It can't easily be pulled or even touched by my weed eater as it has a poison inside that burns the skin and lungs. I intend to use glyphosate if I have to, but I'm open to other suggestions from people here that would also get the job done.Ignore This , 4 hours ago link
" If glyphosate really was that cancer causing, it would have led to a decline decades ago I would think. "
Monasanto was just stupid to claim Glyphosate didn't have an pontential toxic properties. It would have just been wise to put on the label: "Do not ingest or inhale, May contain toxic and carcinogens. where protective gloves and clothing when handling. Do not apply near streams, ponds or other sources of fresh water."
If someone gets sick, they are not liable or have limited liability.
" I intend to use glyphosate if I have to, but I'm open to other suggestions from people here that would also get the job done. "
Just use protective clothing & gloves when handling what ever herbicide you use. Avoid spraying in a way that you might inhale or get exposure. FWIW: I have a hogweed growing on my property. Way too dangerous to touch of get near. I am going try using Glyphosate to kill it, if that does do it, I try another herbicide.
Hogweed is very dangerous: Like poison ivy only about 1000 times worse. Even lightly touching it can cause very nasty skin lesions. Herbicide is the only safe way to get rid of it.delmar Jackson , 5 hours ago link
Weedkiller is killing people because ... we said so!
But what if it isn't weedkiller? What if it is plastic bottles or food preservative or over the counter pain remedies? We would never know because ZH says it's weed killer. It could be a combination of many things. Since this is affecting people in their late 80's, anything that generation was exposed to in the past 80 years could be to blame including during World War II. I realize that rational thought is frowned upon on ZH but have a little skepticism. This is the Internet after all.AGuy , 3 hours ago link
Roundup was sold to farmers for 30 years as a safe way to help harvest their crops and reduce the growth of mold which can be much more toxic then many man made chemicals. I am less worried about monsanto than I am drug overdoses that are killing over 70,000 people a year. Instead of bombing Iran we need to bomb China and mexico for all of the death causing drugs they have imported into our country. Over a quarter of a million people are dead from drugs like heroin and fentanyl in the last 4 years.Xena fobe , 7 hours ago link
" Roundup was sold to farmers for 30 years as a safe way to help harvest their crops and reduce the growth of mold which can be much more toxic then many man made chemicals. "
Nope, its used as a herbicide to kill everything before they plant a crop so the weeds don't compete with the crop.
" I am less worried about monsanto than I am drug overdoses that are killing over 70,000 people a year. "
ODs aren't as terrible as food\water contamination. Any sane person will not abuse opioids. Look at this way: there are 70K less people living on welfare or some other gov't subsidy. However Food\Water contamination is a big deal since its difficult for even the sanest people to avoid it. OD is usually a life choice, Food\Water contamination is not.
Same in the US. Lowered standard of living. Mass migrations and elite 1% burdening the poor and middle class.
Jun 29, 2019 | www.rt.com
Federal prosecutors are expanding their Boeing probe, investigating charges the 787 Dreamliner's manufacture was plagued with the same incompetence that dogged the doomed 737 MAX and resulted in hundreds of deaths. The US Department of Justice has requested records related to 787 Dreamliner production at Boeing's South Carolina plant, where two sources who spoke to the Seattle Times said there have been allegations of " shoddy work ." A third source confirmed individual employees at the Charleston plant had received subpoenas earlier this month from the " same group " of prosecutors conducting the ongoing probe into the 737 MAX. Boeing is in the hot seat over alleged poor quality workmanship and cutting corners at the South Carolina plant.
Prosecutors are likely concerned with whether " broad cultural problems " pervade the entire company, including pressure to OK shoddy work in order to deliver planes on time, one source told the Seattle Times. The South Carolina plant manufactured 45 percent of Boeing's 787s last year, but its supersize -10 model is built exclusively there.
Prosecutors are on the hunt for " hallmarks of classic fraud ," the source said, such as lying or misrepresentation to customers and regulators. Whistleblowers in the Charleston factory who pointed to debris and even tools left in the engine, near wiring, and in other sensitive locations likely to cause operating issues told the New York Times they were punished by management, and managers reported they had been pushed to churn planes out faster and cover up delays.
The 737 MAX, too, was reportedly rushed to market amid much corner-cutting in order to beat competitor Airbus' hot new model. Worse, the Federal Aviation Administration allegedly let Boeing conduct many of the critical safety checks itself, and other countries' regulators took the US safety certification as proof they did not need to conduct their own checks, culminating in the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines tragedies in October and March.
A critical fire-fighting system on the Dreamliner was discovered to be dysfunctional earlier this month, leading Boeing to issue a warning that the switch designed to extinguish engine fires had failed in " some cases ." While the FAA warned that " the potential exists for an airline fire to be uncontrollable ," they opted not to ground the 787s, instead ordering airlines to check that the switch was functional every 30 days.
Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
The software at the heart of the Boeing 737 MAX crisis was developed at a time when the company was laying off experienced engineers and replacing them with temporary workers making as little as $9 per hour, according to Bloomberg .
In an effort to cut costs, Boeing was relying on subcontractors making paltry wages to develop and test its software. Often times, these subcontractors would be from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace, like India.
Boeing had recent college graduates working for Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. in a building across from Seattle's Boeing Field, in flight test groups supporting the MAX. The coders from HCL designed to specifications set by Boeing but, according to Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer, "it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code."
Rabin said: "...it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly."
In addition to cutting costs, the hiring of Indian companies may have landed Boeing orders for the Indian military and commercial aircraft, like a $22 billion order received in January 2017 . That order included 100 737 MAX 8 jets and was Boeing's largest order ever from an Indian airline. India traditionally orders from Airbus.
HCL engineers helped develop and test the 737 MAX's flight display software while employees from another Indian company, Cyient Ltd, handled the software for flight test equipment. In 2011, Boeing named Cyient, then known as Infotech, to a list of its "suppliers of the year".
One HCL employee posted online: "Provided quick workaround to resolve production issue which resulted in not delaying flight test of 737-Max (delay in each flight test will cost very big amount for Boeing) ."
But Boeing says the company didn't rely on engineers from HCL for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which was linked to both last October's crash and March's crash. The company also says it didn't rely on Indian companies for the cockpit warning light issue that was disclosed after the crashes.
A Boeing spokesperson said: "Boeing has many decades of experience working with supplier/partners around the world. Our primary focus is on always ensuring that our products and services are safe, of the highest quality and comply with all applicable regulations."
HCL, on the other hand, said: "HCL has a strong and long-standing business relationship with The Boeing Company, and we take pride in the work we do for all our customers. However, HCL does not comment on specific work we do for our customers. HCL is not associated with any ongoing issues with 737 Max."
Recent simulator tests run by the FAA indicate that software issues on the 737 MAX run deeper than first thought. Engineers who worked on the plane, which Boeing started developing eight years ago, complained of pressure from managers to limit changes that might introduce extra time or cost.
Rick Ludtke, a former Boeing flight controls engineer laid off in 2017, said: "Boeing was doing all kinds of things, everything you can imagine, to reduce cost , including moving work from Puget Sound, because we'd become very expensive here. All that's very understandable if you think of it from a business perspective. Slowly over time it appears that's eroded the ability for Puget Sound designers to design."
Rabin even recalled an incident where senior software engineers were told they weren't needed because Boeing's productions were mature. Rabin said: "I was shocked that in a room full of a couple hundred mostly senior engineers we were being told that we weren't needed."
Any given jetliner is made up of millions of parts and millions of lines of code. Boeing has often turned over large portions of the work to suppliers and subcontractors that follow its blueprints. But beginning in 2004 with the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing sought to increase profits by providing high-level specs and then asking suppliers to design more parts themselves.
Boeing also promised to invest $1.7 billion in Indian companies as a result of an $11 billion order in 2005 from Air India. This investment helped HCL and other software developers.
For the 787, HCL offered a price to Boeing that they couldn't refuse, either: free. HCL "took no up-front payments on the 787 and only started collecting payments based on sales years later".
Rockwell Collins won the MAX contract for cockpit displays and relied in part on HCL engineers and contract engineers from Cyient to test flight test equipment.
Charles LoveJoy, a former flight-test instrumentation design engineer at the company, said: "We did have our challenges with the India team. They met the requirements, per se, but you could do it better."
Anonymous IX , 2 minutes ago linkscraping_by , 4 minutes ago link
I love it. A company which fell in love so much with their extraordinary profits that they sabatoged their design and will now suffer enormous financial consequences. They're lucky to have all their defense/military contracts.vienna_proxy , 7 minutes ago link
Oftentimes, it's the cut-and-paste code that's the problem. If you don't have a good appreciation for what every line does, you're never going to know what the sub or entire program does.Ignorance is bliss , 2 minutes ago link
hahahaha non-technical managers making design decisions are complete **** ups wherever they go and here it blew up in their faces roflhispanicLoser , 13 minutes ago link
I see this all the time, and a lot of the time these non-technical decision makers are women.brazilian , 11 minutes ago link
By 2002 i could not sit down with any developers without hearing at least one story about how they had been in a code review meeting and seen absolute garbage turned out by H-1B workers.
Lots of people have known about this problem for many years now.scraping_by , 15 minutes ago link
May the gods damn all financial managers! One of the two professions, along with bankers, which have absolutely no social value whatsoever. There should be open hunting season on both!pops , 20 minutes ago link
Shifting to high-level specs puts more power in the hands of management/accounting types, since it doesn't require engineering knowledge to track a deadline. Indeed, this whole story is the wet dream of business school, the idea of being able to accomplish technical tasks purely by demand. A lot of public schools teach kids science is magic so when they grow up, the think they can just give directions and technology appears.Klassenfeind , 22 minutes ago link
In this country, one must have a license from the FAA to work on commercial aircraft. That means training and certification that usually results in higher pay for those qualified to perform the repairs to the aircraft your family will fly on.
In case you're not aware, much of the heavy stuff like D checks (overhaul) have been outsourced by the airlines to foreign countries where the FAA has nothing to say about it. Those contractors can hire whoever they wish for whatever they'll accept. I have worked with some of those "mechanics" who cannot even read.
Keep that in mind next time the TSA perv is fondling your junk. That might be your last sexual encounter.asteroids , 25 minutes ago link
Boeing Outsourced Its 737 MAX Software To $9-Per-Hour Engineers
Long live the free market, right Tylers?
You ZH guys always rally against minimum wage here, well there you go: $9/hr aircraft 'engineers!' Happy now?reader2010 , 20 minutes ago link
You gotta be kidding. You let kids straight out of school write mission critical code? How ******* stupid are you BA?
Go to India. There are many outsourcing companies that only hire new college graduates for work and they are paid less than $2 an hour for the job.
For the DoD contractors, they have to bring them to the US to work. There are tons of H1B guys from India working for defense contractors.
Jun 27, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Of all the inhabitants of the Little Shop of Horrors that is neoliberalism, surely the most gruesome cohort must be privatization of monopoly public services. And then within this best-worst category, privatization of potable water and wastewater treatment utilities can't be anything other than an outright winner of this ugly competition.
Where I live in southern England, the Thatcher administration – who else? – privatized the previously state-owned company which has a monopoly, as all water supply and sewage treatment inevitably requires, on providing potable water and treating wastewater which flows into the sewer system and eventually, via treatment plants, back into the watercourses.
The result has been a disaster for consumers, the environment and the condition of the infrastructure which was sold off as a result of the privatization. Wikipedia provides a helpful list of the past history of awful, depressing headlines the company has generated:
In 2007 Southern Water was fined £20.3 million for 'deliberate misreporting' and failing to meet guaranteed standards of service to customers. Southern Water Chief Executive Les Dawson said: "Today's announcement draws a line under a shameful period in the company's history".
In 2011 Southern Water Ltd was fined £25,000 when sewage flooded into Southampton water.
The company was ordered to pay £10,000 in fines and costs after sewage seeped into a stream at Beltinge in Kent.
A leak of sewage from Southern Water's plant at Hurstpierpoint pumping station, West Sussex, lead to fines and costs of £7,200 in 2011.
Southern Water was fined £50,000 in April 2011 for two offences relating to unscreened discharges into Langstone Harbour, Hampshire, between November 2009 and April 2010.
In June 2010 Southern Water was fined £3,000 after it admitted polluting 2 km of a Sussex stream with raw sewage, killing up to a hundred brown trout and devastating the fish population for the second time in five years. Crawley Magistrates' Court heard that the Environment Agency received calls from members of the public after dead fish were seen in the Sunnyside Stream in East Grinstead on 30 August 2009.
In November 2014 Southern Water were fined £500,000 and agreed to pay costs of £19,224 at Canterbury Crown Court after an Environment Agency investigation found that untreated sewage was discharged into the Swalecliffe Brook, polluting a 1.2 kilometre stretch of the watercourse and killing local wildlife. (www.gov.uk/government/news)
In December 2016 Southern Water was fined a record £2,000,000 for flooding beaches in Kent with raw sewage, leaving them closed to the public for nine days. The Environment Agency called the event "catastrophic", while the judge at Maidstone crown court said that Southern Water's repeat offending was "wholly unacceptable " . The company apologised unreservedly, as it did when fined £200,000 in 2013 for similar offences. Due to health concerns, Thanet district council was forced to close beaches for nine consecutive days, including the Queen's diamond jubilee bank holiday weekend. (The Guardian, 19 December 2016)
You would have thought, perhaps in hope rather than realism, that after this deluge of crap (literally), Southern Water (and their investors) might have, if you'll forgive the pun, wondered if it wasn't time to clean up their act. If so, you'd be, uncharacteristically for Naked Capitalism readers, rather naive. Southern Water has made their previous civil violations look like a spot of mustard on a necktie.
Southern Water was fined by the regulators here £126M on June 25th, which sounds a lot but is in reality in slap on the wrists territory in view of their latest misconduct.
Before delving into the details of that, to provide some context, the utility is the usual PE-orchestrated financial-engineering asset-sweating systematical reduction of a former public service to a hollowed out husk.
Here's the ownership structure, as explained by Southern Water :
Southern Water is owned by a consortium, which came together
Clive again, momentarily interrupting the flow, like a blocked sewer. The use of language there is almost an art form. "came together". Did they all hook up on Tinder or something? Not a bit of it. The "consortium" was a Private Equity instigated lash up of yield-hungry investors chasing, like everyone else these days, above-average rates of return. Why didn't they simply buy chunks of the publicly-traded equity tranches of the company to give themselves exposure to this particular asset class (public utilities)? Because this wouldn't have given them sufficient leverage and control over the institution to do their financial raping and pillaging. Back, reluctantly, to Southern Water
in 2007 solely for this purpose.
The consortium members are shareholders in Greensands Holdings Limited, the top holding company. [ ]
The Greensands consortium members comprise a mixture of infrastructure investment funds, pension funds and private equity. The infrastructure funds are managed by JP Morgan Asset Management, UBS Asset Management and Hermes Investment Management.
The pension funds are represented by JP Morgan Asset Management, UBS Asset Management, Hermes Investment Management and Whitehelm Capital or are self-managed. Cheung Kong Infrastructure and The Li Ka Shing Foundation are direct investors.
What have these fine upstanding custodians of our water supply been up to, then? Lying, cheating, bullying and polluting. Ofwat, the UK water industry regulator, started peering more closely at Southern Water in 2018. They didn't like the look of what they saw .
A board which was asleep at the wheel:
Water resources management plan and market information
What we found
Overall, we had serious concerns in key areas of this assessment such as options costing, Board involvement, assurance and leakage reduction presentation. The draft water resources management plan option costs were not presented clearly and a limited description of assurance was provided for both the plan and market information table. The late provision of the market information and the time taken to update option cost information did not provide confidence in the company's management of this data. The leakage reduction target, a key plan metric, was not consistently presented in the plan and there was no evidence of Board involvement or sign off.
Our assessment: serious concerns
A company that deliberately obfuscated the regulators:
What we found
[ ] We currently have four open cases – an enforcement case, a sewer requisition case and two requests to appoint an arbitrator.
In terms of the enforcement case, we do not consider that the company has met our expectations and we have serious concerns. This is based on Southern Water not responding fully to our requests for information (for example, by providing documents with missing pages and/or text), not responding in a timely manner and providing relevant information that was unclear. This has affected our ability to rely on the information provided and has required us to take steps to seek further clarifications and grant extensions to previous deadlines for responses, impacting our ability to progress the investigation as quickly and efficiently as we would have liked.
Our assessment: serious concerns
These failings led the regulator to conduct a much wider-reaching inquiry. The full regulatory report has to be read in its entirety to convey the awfulness that went on. But edited highlights, or maybe that should be low-lights, were:
・Falsification of regulatory reporting for effluent discharge quality to avoid fines:
In summary, as a consequence of now restating past WwTW performance data, we have calculated that Southern Water has avoided price review penalties in past years amounting to a total of £75 million (in 2017-18 prices). This has arisen as a direct consequence of the practices in place within the company to implement ANFs at its WwTW (Clive: Waste-water Treatment Works) over 2010 to 2017. The total amount of avoided price review penalties reflects the restated figures that Southern Water has now provided about the numbers of WwTW that were potentially non-compliant with permit conditions relating to final effluent quality.
・Deliberate attempts at evasion -- government agencies monitor water treatment plants but the operator predicted when the inspections and sampling was due and intentionally halted to flow from treatment plants ("Artificial No Flow or ANF" events) so there was no output to sample:
The Sampling Compliance Report provides evidence (mostly in the form of email extracts between employees of Southern Water between 2010 and 2017), of staff anticipating the timing of planned OSM (Clive: On Site Monitoring) samples across numerous WwTW, in order to ensure that no effluent was available for sampling purposes. This deliberate practice (which took place through a number of different methods) of creating an artificial "no flow" event (described as an "Artificial No Flow or ANF") meant that a sample under the OSM regime could not be taken thus ensuring that the sample (and as a consequence the relevant WwTW) would be deemed as being compliant with permit conditions. As a result of this manipulation, a false picture of Southern Water's WwTW performance (and how this was being achieved) was provided internally within the company, to the Environment Agency (Clive: the UK's equivalent of the EPA, similarly gutted, but that's another story for another time ) and to Ofwat
・They even took waste water discharges away by tanker so nothing could be measured at the outfall pipes.
Staff then used the knowledge about sample dates to put in place ANFs. This included, for example, through the improper use of tankering (i.e. by tankering wastewater from one WwTW to another to cause an ANF). Another method included 'recirculating' effluent within a WwTW again to ensure there was no final effluent available for sampling.
・Senior management hassled and pressured employees to obfuscate performance measures.
The report also highlighted occasions where employees felt pressured by senior managers to create ANFs.
・The whistleblowing policy for employees actually started with a big red frightener threatening dismissal for using the wrongdoing reporting mechanisms:
Southern Water has acknowledged in its Action Plan that there were deficiencies in its organisational culture which prevented employees from being comfortable with speaking out about inappropriate or non-compliant behaviours. This included having in place ineffective whistleblowing processes which resulted in no staff coming forward to report their concerns despite certain staff being obviously uncomfortable about the implementation of ANFs and feeling pressured to act in an improper manner (as evidenced by emails we have seen that are referenced in the Sampling Compliance Report).
The whistleblower policy Southern Water had in place at the time included on its first page and highlighted in bold the following text: "Should any investigation conclude that the disclosure was designed to discredit another individual or group, prove to be malicious or misleading then that worker concerned would become the subject of the Disciplinary Procedure or even action from the aggrieved individual."
By pretending that waste water being discharged into watercourses was of a higher quality than it was, the investors pocketed profits that should have gone on infrastructure improvements and staffing to enable treatment plants to be safely operated and checked effectively.
Criminal investigations are pending . But we've seen this movie many times before. Protected by the best corporate lawyers money (public consumers' money, that is) can buy, a defence shield of auditors, layers of management on whom the blame can be pinned and a complex legal argument which has to be constructed to a high evidence threshold allowing jurors to be thrown off the scent to a degree that a reasonable doubt emerges, we shouldn't hold our breaths.
So we're left with the penalties imposed. Unfortunately there's less here than meets the eye initially from the headline figure. From the regulatory report:
This is a notice of Ofwat's intention to issue Southern Water with a financial penalty amounting to £37.7 million reduced exceptionally to £3 million for significant breaches of its licence conditions and its statutory duties. This is on the basis that Southern Water has undertaken to pay customers about £123 million over the next five years, some of which is a payment of price review underperformance penalties the company avoided paying in the period 2010 to 2017 and some of which is a payment to customers for the failures set out in this notice, paid in lieu of a penalty.
This means the regulator reduced the up-front cost (which would have come out of the profits for fiscal 2019-20 in one hit) for an arrangement which allows Southern Water eee-zee payment terms and to spread the cost over five years through a customer rebate initiative. And some of the rebate is itself merely penalties which would have been levied if the wrongdoing -- environmental pollution and missed targets for waste processing quality -- had been identified at the time. They are trying to bribe me with my own money.
The whole sorry saga shows how the entire publicly-overseen but privately-owned regulated utility model is completely broken. The system is a sitting-duck for gaming and, at best, the issues are uncovered well after the fact. If ever.
There is, however, a final failsafe currently still in place. Water quality standards in the EU are mandated by EU Directive with redress available through the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A Member State government can be fined and ordered to implement better oversight and governance of the utilities. Thus, any temptation which the U.K. government might succumb to, to "fix" problems like those entrenched in Southern Water by slackening off the potable and wastewater standards, are prohibited by the threat of EU / CJEU referral.
The U.K. government has promised that, post-Brexit, environmental protections will be "equivalent or better than" those specified in the EU Directive. I -- and similarly cynical readers -- might well harbour a few doubts about that.
Westken Tim , June 27, 2019 at 6:25 am
Mmm. I can't help but think that non-government ownership is not (necessariliy) the problem, but PE (an industry that has made a lot of people rich in the last 20y by pricing the same asset off ever-lower discount rates) certainly is.
Government ownership often results in unaccountable, faceless monopolies (I'm old enough to remember British Rail, which felt that it was an entirely acceptable plan to raise fares to push travellers off rail and onto the roads when the trains got too full) and the "taking private" of steady-state utility businesses, with cashflows that were "ripe" for securitisation and other smoke and mirrors moves, pushed accountability back into the dark ages.
There have been a number of cases of assets like this bought by JVs of PE and public pension plans. I wonder, were the latter just solicited to make the actions of the former look more respectable ?
lyman alpha blob , June 27, 2019 at 1:02 pmThe government certainly doesn't always do a bang up job with everything it controls, but when the government runs things, citizens at least theoretically have some recourse.
When a private corporation runs it, citizens can, literally in the case above, eat s**t.
PlutoniumKun , June 27, 2019 at 6:29 am
There is, however, a final failsafe currently still in place. Water quality standards in the EU are mandated by EU Directive with redress available through the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A Member State government can be fined and ordered to implement better oversight and governance of the utilities. Thus, any temptation which the U.K. government might succumb to, to "fix" problems like those entrenched in Southern Water by slackening off the potable and wastewater standards, are prohibited by the threat of EU / CJEU referral.
I do believe that the combination of Water Quality Framework Directives , along with the Habitats and Birds Directives , are a major 'hidden' driver behind the people behind Brexit. These Directives are written in such a way as to provide almost no wiggle room for national regulators to escape hitting hard quantitative targets for water and habitat improvements. The Fracking industry is a very significant example – the Water Frame Work Directive also sets standards for groundwater, and its exceptionally difficult for the industry to meet the standards of proof that they will not degrade the quality of these water bodies. The ECJ is dominated by judges from northern European jurisdictions, which tend to take a far more 'literal' approach to Directives and their associated national laws and regulations. They provide zero room to massage failures to hit targets.
Escaping those Directives will be worth billions to those two industries at the very least. Well worth shoving a bit of money to the various campaigns. There are plenty of other industries that likewise feel they will benefit from what will be an upcoming bonfire of the Regulations.
Clive , June 27, 2019 at 8:37 am
I think too that the wriggle-room on water quality -- wastewater especially, potable is generally not something that anyone would risk meddling with; well, unless you live in Flint, Michigan, anyway -- has not escaped the notice of or despicable elites here.
The temptation by government to play along, grant "temporary" "exemptions" in response to industry whining, sorry, lobbying, will prove difficult to resist, more than ever when the U.K. government will be in a position to know that its word is final (it can simply make new laws if it decides it doesn't like the old ones).
Will the U.K. as a society end up doing the right thing, or simply backsliding and acquiescence because it's just easier? At least in the short term. I wish I had a definitive answer to that one. Ask me again when we know for sure, although I suspect you'll have to dig me up and open the coffin first.
Susan the other` , June 27, 2019 at 10:16 am
International racketeering. First they hide the real "persons of interest" within a consortium of consortiums of funds of funds – much like some special purpose "vehicle" for wealthy investors – and then they lobby governments bye gaslighting them, saying 'We can do this economically and efficiently' and you are clearly running our of money, so sell this water district to us and we'll get it back on track.' Right. Makes me wonder if Bojo and his cronies are heavy into waste management. Pun intended.
pretzelattack , June 27, 2019 at 6:34 am
almost too depressing to read. thanks, though.
The Rev Kev , June 27, 2019 at 6:37 am
I can only see a change when laws are adjusted so that executives can face actual jail time. Spending a few months, if not a few years, in HMP Berwyn or HMP Bronzefield would definitely not look good on either a resume or on LinkedIn so would concentrate their minds wonderfully about the hazards of breaking laws. Till then, any penalties are merely costs-of-doing -business and so are not a great risk.
EoH , June 27, 2019 at 10:15 am
Prison time for top executives and board members. Real cash on the nail fines, to be paid in lump sums. Right to recover bonuses and distributions made to shareholders. Forfeiture of company ownership to the Crown. For starters.
Jesper , June 27, 2019 at 12:02 pm
Limited liability is a privilege not a right and if the terms for limited liability isn't fulfilled then the limited liability can, in some countries under certain conditions, become unlimited liability. An example, trading while insolvent in Sweden (in Swedish, as the laws are in Swedish and only concerns Sweden then it is unlikely to be found in many other languages):
In practice it seems to only happen for smaller companies .
Craig H. , June 27, 2019 at 11:18 am
How do you put people who sat around a conference table in a corporation committee meeting in jail? The entire process is designed and perfected to evade responsibility. Anytime I see something like this I class it as a complete fluke:
Former head of Volkswagen could face 10 years in prison
Is that scumbag really behind bars? I suspect it is total fake news.
Ignacio , June 27, 2019 at 8:16 am
While I was reading this I was feeling increasingly obfuscated by the similarities I find in the publicly-owned privately-managed sewage and waste plants in Madrid. I can easily understand the frustration of the regulator with managers opacity. Imagine how bored must I be sometimes, that I annually take a look at the reports that the managers of those plants produce. These are rubbish reports. You have to spend a lot of time, first trying to understand the real meaning of some concepts, second to gather the truly relevant variables in order to assess the real performance of the plants.
I have to say that the situation in Spain must be worse than in the UK because regulators, if they exist, never come up with auditing results, not to mention noticing misconducts. We are miles away from being able to even fine those misconducts of which only a few have been brougth to the public by NGOs.
Ignacio , June 27, 2019 at 12:21 pm
Interestingly the former progressive Major of Madrid Carmena, now replaced with conservatives in alliance with xenophobe populists, ordered the first audit (i believe it is the first) of the waste treatment plant, a huge facility called Valdemingómez. I guess that the current Major, whose name I don't want to recall, will hide audit results to the public given that his party set years ago the current model for waste management.
Tom Stone , June 27, 2019 at 10:20 am
Corporate motto "Eat shit and die".
Susan the other` , June 27, 2019 at 10:32 am
Good waste management/recycling is going to be the industry of the future. Instead of being publicly contrite about their excessive wealth, the Billionaires should all focus their resources on fixing what will otherwise be an overwhelming mess. We will all be, as the military says, "Overtaken by events" someday soon unless we get on top of this. Pollution, garbage and sewage are the byproducts of our irresponsibility. Coupled with overpopulation. Not good. Andrew Carnegie donated his money away on good things. Every little town in America was a beneficiary, with a "Carnegie Library" among other things. But it made us all laugh out loud when San Francisco named its new water treatment facility the "George W. Bush Sewage and Water Treatment Facility" (or stg. like that). Unfortunately, the joke is really on us unless we start demanding improvements and responsibility. The problem is already almost too big to fix, Houston.
Joe Well , June 27, 2019 at 10:52 am
I knew an English guy circa 1999 who was then 35 years old and a hard Thatcherite in his opinions (didn't do any actual political activism, of course) because the previous Labour governments had ruined everything to the point that the country had to go to the IMF. He was no fan of the NHS, either. NHS-reimbursed dentists had done a ton of unnecessary fillings on him and his young friends as children. Worse, NHS doctors had misdiagnosed a life-threatening illness for years until American emergency room doctors did a bunch of expensive tests and cured him.
I wonder what he would have to say 20 years later now that the faults of privatization on both sides of the Atlantic have been laid bare?
I don't think there is any alternative to constant watchdogging and activism by the general public.
Cal2 , June 27, 2019 at 12:45 pm
Sewage treatment is part of health care. Places without adequate sewage treatment suffer rampant diseases in potable water, fish, animals and people exposed to it. Sewage treatment facilities are the only example of publicly run health care in the U.S. Each homeowner, and renter, pays a certain amount for it and it is handled to scientific standards without a profit motive.
dk , June 27, 2019 at 12:58 pm
And well done Clive.
Jun 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
With Boeing's fleet of 737 MAX planes indefinitely grounded after unexpected problems with the MCAS system costs hundreds of people their lives in two fatal crashes, tests on the grounded planes revealed a new, and unrelated safety risk in the computer system for the Boeing 737 Max that could push the plane downward the FAA announced; the discovery could lead to further lengthy delays before the aircraft is allowed return to service.
A series of simulator flights to test new software developed by Boeing revealed the flaw, a source told CNN . In simulator tests, government pilots discovered that a microprocessor failure could push the nose of the plane toward the ground. It is not known whether the microprocessor played a role in either crash.
While the original crashes remain under investigation, preliminary reports showed that "a new stabilization system pushed both planes into steep nosedives from which the pilots could not recover." The issue is known in aviation circles as runaway stabilizer trim.
"The FAA recently found a potential risk that Boeing must mitigate," the agency said in an emailed statement on Wednesday, without providing any specifics.
While the latest glitch is separate from, and did not involve the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System linked to the two fatal accidents since October that killed 346 people, it could produce an uncommanded dive similar to what occurred in the crashes, Bloomberg confirmed, also citing an unnamed source..
Meanwhile, piling damage control upon damage control, Boeing announced it could break the chain of events that led to both crashes by developing a software fix that would limit the potency of that stabilization system. In other words, for every uncontrolled dive there is a software upgrade... allegedly. The problem is that the broader public is becoming increasingly disgusted by what is a clear culture of cutting corners and rolling out flying coffins that crash to earth the moment there is a BSOD.
motoXdude , 1 minute ago linkOne of these is not like the others.. , 11 minutes ago link
... the "nosedives" are the cost accountants cutting what little value remains in any American produced good or service! Once again the end-user is the LAST consideration in Corporate America!dlweld , 14 minutes ago link
O.K. Boeing, here's your fix.
Given that the screw jack is a bi-directional system: If it's electric you rewire it, if hydraulic replumb it, but essentially you fit an "auto" and a "manual" switch (or valve).
In the "manual" position the pilots have a toggle to set the damn trim wherever they ******* like. In the "auto" position the software can have a go. Clear demarcation of responsibilty.
They are pilots after all, not computer programmers.
You are hereby granted an open licence to use this idea free of Royalties of any kind, but I would like it referred to in the manual as the "Professor Dave" fix..MAN2015 , 5 minutes ago link
According to the FAA there are great risks involved, flying the 737 max when pilots aren't physically strong. They will be unable to handle the 737 max when trimming is needed to avoid crashing into the ground. Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/physical-strength-of-pilots-emerges-as-issue-in-returning-737-max-to-flight-11560937879Wannabe_Oracle , 15 minutes ago link
So Boeing is biased against female pilots ;-) ...HmanBH , 16 minutes ago link
I argue 'Not a glitch - an unintended feature that Boeing knew about'. The new engine design needed an entirely different fuselage and that didn't happen. Why? Likely money. ../3-fingered_chemist , 32 minutes ago link
Washington will fix this problem with "Buy BA planes or face regime change .."redrepublic , 30 minutes ago link
At this point, they will be redesigning the plane which is what should have been done from the start. It will never be re-certified. All the immense profits and cost savings went down the drain, and now it's actually costing them money. The CEO will be terminated in the near future.Vince Clortho , 46 minutes ago link
Flying Coffins -- what a great descriptor.
Very negative Headline.
Implies that Uncontrollable Nosedives are a bad thing.
Jun 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Over 400 pilots have joined a class-action lawsuit against Boeing, accusing the company of an "unprecedented cover-up" of "known design flaws" on the company's top-selling 737 MAX, according to the Australian Broadcasting Company.
The MAX, first put into service in 2017, was involved in two fatal crashes over the course of a year; the first off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018, killing 189 - and the second in Ethiopia, killing 157. The lawsuit, filed by a plaintiff who goes by "Pilot X" in court documents out of "fear of reprisal from Boeing and discrimination from Boeing customers," accuses the Chicago-based aviation giant of "an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide."
The pilots argue that they " suffer and continue to suffer significant lost wages, among other economic and non-economic damages " since the fleet was grounded across the globe.
The lawsuit focuses on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) anti-stall system , which Pilot X claims gave the aircraft "inherently dangerous aerodynamic handling defects."In May, we reported that Boeing designers also altered a MCAS toggle switch panel that could have prevented both of the deadly crashes.
The reason for this handling quirk was by design, as Boeing made the decision to retrofit newer, large fuel-efficient engines onto an existing 737 model's fuselage, in order to create the MAX.
The larger engines caused a change in aerodynamics which made the plane prone to pitching up during flight, so much so, that it risked a crash as a result of an aerodynamic stall.
To stop this from happening, Boeing introduced MCAS software to the MAX, which automatically tilted the plane down if the software detected that the plane's nose was pointing at too steep of an angle , known as a high Angle of Attack (AOA). - ABC
On the older 737 NG, the right switch was labeled "AUTO PILOT" - and allowed pilots to deactivate the plane's automated stabilizer controls, such as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), suspected to be the culprit in both crashes. The left toggle switch on the NG would deactivate the buttons on the yoke which pilots regularly use to control the horizontal stabilizer.
On the 737 MAX, however, the two switches were altered to perform the same function , according to internal documents reviewed by the Times, so that they would disable all electronic stabilizer controls - including the MCAS and the thumb buttons on the yoke used to control the stabilizer. During the October Lion Air flight, pilots were reportedly unaware of how to troubleshoot the MCAS system - while the day before , an off-duty pilot with knowledge of the stabilizer controls helped pilots disable the system on the same plane. Data from the flight revealed that the repeated commands from the MCAS system sent the flight from Bali to Jakarta plummeting into the sea.
In a rush to bring the plane to customers, Boeing did not alert pilots to the software in a bid to prevent " any new training that required a simulator " -- a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money.
Pilot X, alleges that Boeing "decided not to tell MAX pilots about the MCAS or to require MAX pilots to undergo any MCAS training" so that its customers could deploy pilots on "revenue-generating routes as quickly as possible".
In March, a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) found that the system was only mentioned once in the aircraft manual, which was in the glossary, explaining the MCAS acronym -- an omission Boeing did not deny in response to the CBC. - ABC
The pilots who have joined the lawsuit hope to "deter Boeing and other airplane manufacturers from placing corporate profits ahead of the lives of the pilots, crews, and general public they service."
Curiously_Crazy , 1 minute ago linkTeraByte , 5 minutes ago link
"a decision that was also designed to save MAX customers money."
Should really read "A decision that was also designed to lower overall purchase price ensuring it was better able to compete".
It had nothing to do with being benevolent and "saving" MAX customers money.Westcoastliberal , 39 minutes ago link
A true classic of cutting corners. Boeing was so much in hurry to introduce a stretched version of 737 that while an airplane frame and an engine were incompatible they organized a shotgun wedding between the two compromising sound aero dynamical characteristics. To override these inconveniences MCAS software was created, but pilots were not informed of this extra feature and most likely why this had to be added. It obviously would have raised uncomfortable questions. (Yes you can also fix hanging panels with ducted tape)
Now the bill for this criminal negligence is huge, because the planes are grounded, pilots joining to a class action and 300+ deaths will be settled in court. The situation also exposed corruption in the certification process. It was previously unheard of that a manufacturer was allowed themselves unilaterally decide, what parameters were appropriate, when this MCAS fix was approved. Would be nice to see the both parties´ bank records from that time period.squid , 1 hour ago link
This is the beginning of the end for Boeing. Take a look at what's going on in their 787 assembly plant in N. Chas S. Carolina. Of 15 workers polled, 9 said they would not step aboard the plane they're building!
https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/MaxThrust , 1 hour ago link
They are going to win because everything they allege is true.
Like I said a few days back, Boeing either:
1. Takes a 30 billion dollar charge and halts the production line, installs a HW retrofit that allows full disconnection of the MCAS to allow the pilots to fly the plane, offers this retrofit FREE and immediately to all existing customers,
2. Close up shop.
The FAA, who have already fucked up enough on this, must insist on item 1.
As a corollary, the the MBA ***** running the 737Max project team need to be terminated without prejudice with all options, stock, pensions and bonuses forfeited. Sorry you slimy turds, you killed 600 people for your ******* careers.....**** you.
Edit: you MBA pukes, you had a Bsc or MSc in areo-space engineering but went over to the dark side to learn how to commit fraud and feel good about it. You are a disgrace to the engineering profession, again, from the bottom of my heart, **** you.
Squidpeippe , 1 hour ago link
"On the 737 MAX, however, the two switches were altered to perform the same function, according to internal documents reviewed by the Times, so that they would disable all electronic stabilizer controls - including the MCAS and the thumb buttons on the yoke used to control the stabilizer. "
On the B737 NG if a "Runaway Stabilizer" situation occurs the procedure is to turn off both Stabilizer trim switches. This is in effect exactly what the 737Max does as described above in the quotation marks. Therefore the result is the same on both aircraft leading to the pilot having to use manual trim to alleviate aerodynamic forces on the control column.
The question that has yet to be answered is, did the pilots of the two crashed aircraft follow these procedures?MaxThrust , 50 minutes ago link
on one flight they threw both, then reactivated them, no logic as to why.GPW , 1 hour ago link
On the Lion air crash I read somewhere the pilots were confused as to why the aircraft was not following their commands. This would suggest the AP was still engaged but as you know, real facts about these two crashes are hard to come bye.Joebloinvestor , 1 hour ago link
This is what happens when the ******* bean counters (McDonald Douglas financial pukes) take over from the engineers (Boeing prior to the merger with MD).beemasters , 2 hours ago link
No part that has to do with safety of the aircraft should be a ******* "option".fersur , 3 hours ago link
No name changing of the fleet will fix the destroyed reputation of the US corporation. Trying to stay competitive is understandable, but to cut corners on safety is unforgivable.
Reliance on Three independent Computers is no-way to Fly, the shortcutting was Not WindTunnel testing after increasing wing size, increasing engine size that required repositioning forward and attempting to expect Third Computer to reach altitude quicker so that Autopilot could fly !
Apr 11, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
mi Griffin , 11 Apr 2019 01:152 simple points that epitomize neo liberalism.
1. Hayek's book 'The Road to Serfdom' uses an erroneous metaphor. He argues that if we allow gov regulation, services and spending to continue then we will end up serfs. However, serfs are basically the indentured or slave labourers of private citizens and landowners not of the state. Only in a system of private capital can there be serfs. Neo liberalism creates serfs not a public system.
2. According to Hayek all regulation on business should be eliminated and only labour should be regulated to make it cheap and contain it so that private investors can have their returns guaranteed. Hence the purpose of the state is to pass laws to suppress workers.
These two things illustrate neo-liberalism. Deception and repression of labour.
Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Speaking on the eve of the Paris airshow, Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, admitted to reporters that the company made a "mistake" in handling a problematic cockpit warning system in its 737 Max jets before two crashes of the top-selling plane killed 346 people, and he promised transparency as the U.S. aircraft maker tries to get the grounded model back in flight.
In response to FAA faulting Boeing for not telling regulators for more than year that a safety indicator in the Max cockpit didn't work, AP reports that Muilenberg has now admitted that Boeing's communication with regulators, customers and the public "was not consistent. And that's unacceptable."
"We clearly had a mistake in the implementation of the alert," Muilenburg said.
"When I make comments about the previous design and how we followed those processes, that's something we put a lot of thought and depth of analysis into. That doesn't mean that it can't be improved."
Muilenburg went on to call the crashes of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines jets a "defining moment" for Boeing, but said he thinks the result will be a "better and stronger company."
He expressed confidence that the Boeing 737 Max would be cleared to fly again later this year.
Additionally, the embattled CEO confirmed the company is undergoing a multi-faceted review of 737 Max design , noting that regulators are examining the 737 Max software, angle-of-attack disagree alert, and are also studying "every element of training syllabus."
I am Groot , 2 minutes ago linkReflectoMatic , 5 minutes ago link
" We mistaked some people"John Basilone , 11 minutes ago link
The brains of these CEOs are infected with a virusflyonmywall , 13 minutes ago link
"Mistakes were made."
The understatement of the decade.pitz , 17 minutes ago link
Back in the old days, the CEO of Boeing usually came through the ranks, and had at least some engineering experience.
Now Boeing (like everything else) is run by Burgstein bean counters.
If you keep letting the Steins and the Burgs handle things, pretty soon you end up with a whole lotta dead people.
Just sayin'SMD , 26 minutes ago link
Speech the Boeing CEO should make: "At Boeing, we put engineering and safety first. Therefore, I am immediately offering my services, as CEO, at the same all-in pay as an average Boeing engineer. All executives and Board members who want to remain with the company will be required to do the same. Our headquarters is moving to where it belongs, Seattle, Paine Field, so we can focus acutely on our business of building the finest aircraft we can."Wild Bill Steamcock , 26 minutes ago link
Muilenberg has implemented in percentage terms the largest stock buyback program in history. This is why he never apologizes for murdering innocent passengers. His job is to borrow money on behalf of the shareholders, use it to buy out the shares of the insiders, then, when repayment time comes around, scream for the taxpayers to give them a bogus defense contract to cover the loans.Boeing Boy , 34 minutes ago link
Boeing CEO Admits "Mistakes" Were Made Before 2 Crashes Killed 346 People
Understatement of the century Dennis. You shouldn't be able to sleep comfortably at night you son of a bitch. Yet, you probably see yourself far removed from the process and you'll let your underlings hang. Choke on your next executive bonus! **** you!world_debt_slave , 27 minutes ago link
Incredible that the guy is still CEO. He still can't properly apologise for what happened on his watch and I am not at all convinced by Boeing's response to this double tragedy. I won't be setting foot in this lousy aircraft even after the software update and pilot retraining it remains a death trap in my view, even if it is flown by steely eyed American airline pilots as opposed to pilots from some "second rate" country.NotGonnaTakeItAnymore , 49 minutes ago link
statistics say most ceos are psychopathsaerofan3 , 1 hour ago link
If the Boeing Board was doing its job, Muilenburg would be fired for cause. It really is that simple. That he still has a job shows how impotent the Board of Directors truly is. Either impotent or.... maybe, also culpable??
A new Board has to be seated and everyone involved with this fiasco must be terminated. Boeing is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. That's also a fact. Don't waste years pointing fingers at whose to blame- there is plenty of blame to go around.
1) Fire Boeing leadership.
2) Replace everyone on the BOD who knew anything about the angle of attack indicators and software problems.
3) Replace everyone fired with Boeing people who sounded warnings.
4) Pay every family of the victims 15 million dollars immediately.
5) Put the FAA on the shop floor and make the FAA do all testing and inspections. No self-certifying.
I have been reading everything I can find on the 737Max. I kept coming to similar conclusions to those of the pilots who have flown it, and I was particularly interested in one of the comments "The airframe with the engines mounted differently did not have adequately stable handling at high AoA to be certifiable".
The things that I have read both from Boeing and others, some of which precede both accidents, seem to point towards the above comment.
So - Boeing literature states that the engine pylons were a new item to handle the extra engine weight, and were forward and higher than the previous ones. I have flown in many 737's over my years of travel and I have noticed how the engines flex on the pylons during take off and climb, power changes, and especially on landing.
If, and you would have to think that it is a big IF, the pylons flexed more than their design limit in the climb, could this cause an unexpected incipient stall situation - enough to get the software to kick in?
What do I know - I'm just a PPL!!
Jun 11, 2019 | www.businessinsider.com
Zachary Smith | Jun 11, 2019 11:14:51 AM | 136
Boeing is playing with fire. In a "normal" airliner crash the manufacturer is seldom as obviously guilty as Boeing is in both crashes. Paying huge awards to the families of the victims ought to be part of the punishment for such outrageous corporate misbehavior.
Jun 10, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
The Boeing-driven FAA is rushing to unground the notorious prone-to-stall Boeing 737 MAX (that killed 346 innocents in two crashes) before several official investigations are completed. Troubling revelations might keep these planes grounded worldwide.
The FAA has a clearly established pro-Boeing bias and will likely allow Boeing to unground the 737 MAX. We must demand that the two top FAA officials resign or recuse themselves from taking any more steps that might endanger the flying public. The two Boeing-indentured men are Acting FAA Administrator Daniel Elwell and Associate FAA Administrator for Aviation Safety Ali Bahrami.
Immediately after the crashes, Elwell resisted grounding and echoed Boeing claims that the Boeing 737 MAX was a safe plane despite the deadly crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
Ali Bahrami is known for aggressively pushing the FAA through 2018 to further abdicate its regulatory duties by delegating more safety inspections to Boeing. Bahrami's actions benefit Boeing and are supported by the company's toadies in the Congress. Elwell and Bahrami have both acquired much experience by going through the well-known revolving door between the industry and the FAA. They are likely to leave the FAA once again for lucrative positions in the aerospace lobbying or business world. With such prospects, they do not have much 'skin in the game' for their pending decision.
The FAA has long been known for its non-regulatory, waiver-driven, de-regulatory traditions. It has a hard time saying NO to the aircraft manufacturers and the airlines. After the aircraft hijackings directing flights to Cuba in the 1960s and 1970s, the FAA let the airlines say NO to installing hardened cockpit doors and stronger latches in their planes. These security measures would have prevented the hijackers from invading the cockpits of the aircrafts on September 11, 2001. The airlines did not want to spend the $3000 per plane. Absent the 9/11 hijackings, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might not have gone to war in Afghanistan.
The FAA's historic "tombstone" mentality (slowly reacting after the crashes) is well known. For example, in the 1990s the FAA had a delayed reaction to numerous fatal crashes caused by antiquated de-icing rules. The FAA was also slow to act on ground-proximity warning requirements for commuter airlines and flammability reduction rules for aircraft cabin materials.
That's the tradition that Elwell and Bahrami inherited and have worsened. They did not even wait for Boeing to deliver its reworked software before announcing in April that simulator training would not be necessary for the pilots. This judgment was contrary to the experience of seasoned pilots such as Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Simulator training would delay ungrounding and cost the profitable airlines money.
Boeing has about 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. It has delivered less than 400 to the world's airlines. From its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg to its swarms of Washington lobbyists, law firms, and public relations outfits, Boeing is used to getting its way. Its grip on Congress – where 300 members take campaign cash from Boeing – is legendary. Boeing pays little in federal and Washington state taxes. It fumbles contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense but remains the federal government's big vendor for lack of competitive alternatives in a highly concentrated industry.
Right now, the Boeing/FAA strategy is to make sure Elwell and his FAA quickly decide that the MAX is safe for takeoff by delaying or stonewalling Congressional and other investigations.
The compliant Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, under Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), strangely has not scheduled anymore hearings. The Senate confirmation of Stephen Dickson to replace acting chief Elwell is also on a slow track. A new boss at the FAA might wish to take some time to review the whole process.
Time is not on the side of the 737 MAX 8. A comprehensive review of the 737 MAX's problems is a non-starter for Boeing. Boeing's flawed software and instructions that have kept pilots and airlines in the dark have already been exposed. New whistleblowers and more revelations will emerge. More time may also result in the Justice Department's operating grand jury issuing some indictments. More time would let the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) dig into the failure of accountability and serial criminal negligence of Boeing and its FAA accomplices. Chairman DeFazio knows the history of the FAA's regulatory capture.
Not surprising on June 4, 2019, DeFazio sent a stinging letter to FAA's Elwell and his corporatist superior, Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao, about the FAA's intolerable delays in sending requested documents to the Committee. DeFazio's letter says: "To say we are disappointed and a bit bewildered at the ongoing delays to appropriately respond to our records requests would be an understatement."
The FAA and its Boeing pals are using the "trade secret" claims to censor records sought by the House Committee. When it comes to investigating life or death airline hazards and crashes, Congress is capable of handling so-called trade secrets. This is all the more reason why the terminally prejudiced Elwell and Bahrami should step aside and let their successors take a fresh look at the Boeing investigations. That effort would include opening up the certification process for the entire Boeing MAX as a "new plane."
The Boeing-biased Elwell and Bahrami have refused to even raise in public proceedings the question: "After eight or more Boeing 737 iterations, at what point does the Boeing MAX 8 become a new plane?" Many, including Cong. David Price (D-NC), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the FAA's budget, have already questioned the limited certification process.
Heavier engines on the old 737 fuselage changed the MAX's aerodynamics and made it prone-to-stall. It is time for the FAA's leadership to change before the 737 MAX flies with vulnerable, glitch-prone software "fixes".
Notwithstanding the previous Boeing 737 series' record of safety in the U.S. during the past decade – (one fatality), Boeing's bosses, have now disregarded warnings by its own engineers. Boeing executives do not get one, two, three or anymore crashes attributed to their ignoring long-known aerodynamic engineering practices.
The Boeing 737 MAX must never be allowed to fly again, given the structural design defects built deeply into its system.
Jun 08, 2019 | www.rt.com
The majority of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft had a non-working alert for faulty sensor data. The company scheduled the problem to be fixed three years after discovering it and didn't inform the FAA until one of the planes crashed. Two Boeing 737 MAX airliners operated by Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashed five months apart, killing a total of 346 people, and leading to a worldwide grounding of the new model. Both accidents were apparently caused by faulty data from Angle of Attack (AoA) sensors, which made the aircraft software falsely detect impending stalling and pushed the aircraft's nose down.
Pilots were supposed to be alerted about possible problems with the sensors by an AoA Disagree alert, which should light up when data coming from two AoA sensors does not match. But the alert required an optional set of indicators to be installed to actually work, and only 20 percent of the aircraft sold had them. Boeing learned about the situation in November 2017, but considered it a low-risk issue and scheduled a fix for 2020, the company reported to a House committee.Also on rt.com Some Boeing 737 MAX planes may have 'improperly manufactured' parts that should be replaced - FAA
After Lion Air flight 610 crashed in October 2018, the company decided to accelerate its timeline, Boeing said in response to a letter sent by Representatives Peter DeFazio and Rick Larsen, who head a House committee that is investigating the crashes and possible mismanagement by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the rollout of the 737 MAX. Boeing first informed the FAA about the faulty alert after one of the planes crashed.
The aviation giant reported the issue earlier in May. Neither the Lion Air aircraft nor Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, which crashed in March, had the optional feature that allows the alert to work, although it was not immediately clear if the pilots could have averted the disasters if they had known that the AoA sensors were failing.
The Lion Air aircraft, however, narrowly avoided a similar incident a day before its final demise thanks to an off-duty pilot who was in the cockpit and instructed the crew to turn off the anti-stalling system.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
Jun 06, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
A serious development factor with the Max was to get pilots to be able to transfer from the prior generations of 737 to the Max with as minimal a training program as possible. A very big selling point. The competitor jet is more comfortable (IMO), a more modern design so you need a competitive edge. The MCAS system was the key. It allegedly made the Max fly like the older generations, preventing the higher thrust from causing a uncontrollable pitch up. One pilot stated that his transition training was 60 minutes on an IPad. Pilots stated they were not aware it was even there, running the whole time. There is no way to "turn it off".
Things get real technical at this point but the basic system relies on a correct read from a single pitch sensor or AOA (angle of attack) sensor. The jet has two, looking like small vanes on either side of the fuselage, just below the cockpit. Focus on the fact that the safest version of MCAS, using both sensors rather than one, cost more money. And so many airlines did not order it.
Now the story starts going very badly. If the one sensor the basic system is looking at goes bad, MCAS does not know the actual nose pitch of the jet and starts to take over trying to fix a problem that isn't there. The pilots can not turn it off. As stated, most didn't even know it was there. Without the sensor working properly it is going to do the wrong things. In Lion Air, the sensor and system was repeatedly found faulty on prior flights. In the Ethiopian crash, there is evidence that a bird strike knocked it off the aircraft. The only thing the pilots can do is turn off the electric motor that controls the horizontal stabilizer (sets pitch or nose angle) and crank the stabilizer by hand. Again, watch the Mentour Pilot video on this.
There is evidence that pilots were reporting issues prior to the Lion Air crash and they absolutely confronted Boeing after it. I have to tell you that this reminds me of the moment after the Challenger accident when we were informed of the outcome of the Rodgers Report and there was undeniable evidence that appropriately placed people knew the infamous O-Rings were leaking all along and were worse as the temperature got colder. We were gutted.
With the Shuttle, IMO, people were allowed to redefine their jobs as "making it fly", not making it fly safely. The word safely got crushed out. I believe Boeing had all the evidence needed to stop this as early as a year ago, if not further back. Corporate cultures, NASA included, create lethal environments for people who scream STOP! See the Columbia accident for a repeat at NASA. It was bad enough that action wasn't taken before the Lion Air accident. I fully believe it's absolutely inexcusable after.
It is not a silly question to ask if Boeing Commercial Aircraft will survive this event. No Lockheed, Douglas or Convair airliners are being manufactured these days. One thing money can't buy is trust. Airlines are cancelling 737 orders. Airbus is selling large numbers of the A320 family and has the financial backing of European countries. The A380 failure (enormous investment and far too few sales) could have taken out a company but not a group of nations. China has a need for some 7,000 regional planes. They are working hard to develop and make their own competent aircraft and to compete internationally. They are a nation, not a private company that has to make a profit.
I (layperson that I am), do not think Boeing Commercial Aircraft will disappear but it may lose its peer status with Airbus. They will fix the Max. That being said, there are serious issues in resolving the correct training to give to pilots. The sales edge of very little training is gone. There are reports that 737 Max simulators, a very big deal in training pilots, need faults corrected in their software. Getting this model back to flying was thought to be a matter of a month or two. Now August may be the earliest qnd the Paris Air Show, where many new sales are usually announced, is nearly at hand.
Boeing has been trying to make a decision on the all new 797, which would replace 757s and 767s now ageing out of usefulness. The market is estimated at 4,000 aircraft on a global basis. Airbus is pitching an A321 variant as the right answer. Their more modern aircraft, the A321, still has room for development. Boeing has to fund, develop, and launch the 797 aircraft. At that point they will be still left with no replacement for the 737.
There is a saying that a commercial aircraft firm bets the company when developing a new airliner. Did Boeing bet the company on not developing a 737 replacement? It looks like we may find out in the next few years.
JohnH , 06 June 2019 at 03:31 PMHow does Embraer factor into the mix? I flew a brand new one on United from Houston to central Mexico, probably an E-175-s. As a passenger, I was impressed. It struck me that Embraer was now getting into Boeing's cash cow business.BabelFish -> JohnH... , 06 June 2019 at 04:14 PMJohn, Boeing saw that one coming and purchased controlling interest in Embraer's commercial airline unit. It was approved this year.BraveNewWorld , 06 June 2019 at 04:05 PM
Airbus countered by buying Bombardier's A220 program.
I like Embraer jets. I flew on a lot of turboprops and remember the improvement when the Embraer and Bombardier jets replaced them.After the ban on technology to China there is zero chance that China will buy Boeing and become the next Iran. They might buy Airbus short term if the US doesn't stop them but China and Russia have already reached an agreement to joint produce airliners.BabelFish -> BraveNewWorld... , 06 June 2019 at 04:19 PM
Cold war 2.0 marches on.Not thinking the Airbus purchase would ever happen. Airbus has significant national ownership. Fiat was trying to merge with Renault and the French government just stopped that.Barbara Ann , 06 June 2019 at 04:39 PMI've not followed this closely, but ever since I discovered that MCAS relied on a single sensor (in the cheaper version) I have wondered about the FAA's role in this. How in God's name did an aircraft with such an obviously dangerous lack of redundancy in a critical system get certified?BabelFish -> Barbara Ann... , 06 June 2019 at 05:00 PMYes. Another post all by itself. Still digging at that but it appears the FAA agreed with Boeing that MCAS would not have to be published in the pilot manuals, or actions were just about to that effect.SAC Brat said in reply to BabelFish ... , 06 June 2019 at 08:18 PM
I made the comment that this would all become a great business class in how not to do something and how exactly not to respond to a disaster that it caused.I suspect the MCAS was presented as an evolution of the earlier SMYD system on the 737NG, which also uses a single AOA sensor input. The SMYD system had less authority to drive the horizontal stabilizer trim system than the MCAS eventually needed.VietnamVet , 06 June 2019 at 05:19 PMThis is an excellent article. Since I was born and raised in a Boeing family; I've been following this the best I can. To get EU and China's recertification the Max's fix will have to be comprehensive and make the plane safe to fly. Sometime next year?Fred -> VietnamVet... , 06 June 2019 at 06:01 PM
This all started when Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997 and GE's Jack Welch followers made increasing shareholder value and corporate suite bonuses the priority at Boeing. What killed 346 people was deregulation and the politicians who cut FAA funding and allowed Boeing to self-certify the safety of their aircraft.
Like what already happened to the Rust Belt, taxes will continue to be cut and money transferred to the global rich until the aircraft industry in North America withers away. The next generation single aisle airliner will be assembled in China. Tariffs and war drums will only speed up this process. Both political parties are complicit in the hallowing out of America. They deny their failures or any future risks; let alone, how to address them.VV,VietnamVet said in reply to Fred ... , 06 June 2019 at 08:13 PM
"What killed 346 people was deregulation and the politicians who cut FAA funding and allowed Boeing to self-certify the safety of their aircraft. "
So engineering design was not a cause? Which specific cut to FAA funding caused this then? Why?
"To get EU and China's recertification the Max's fix will have to be comprehensive and make the plane safe to fly."
So EU and China certifications that previously existing had no inherent value as they simply went along with the US FAA?Fred,JJackson , 06 June 2019 at 05:32 PM
The Seattle Times has had a good series of articles on the 737 Max. Funds to oversee flight safety were cut by both political parties. The FAA plant representatives who oversee aircraft safety are now paid by Boeing not public servants.
My impression is that the political appointees who rotate through government and corporate jobs believe that the greater their income the better it is for them and everyone else.
The FAA assumed that Boeing wouldn't design a flight critical system dependent on one sensor that if it went bad would dive the airplane into the ground. But, Boeing did. Boeing did not ground the fleet after the Lion Air crash when the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew was found in the full nose down position making flying impossible. This was all due to pressure to keep pilot training costs down. Another example of the toxic work environment at Boeing since the merger was reporting that the staff didn't dare tell the Boeing CEO when they rolled out the 787 it wouldn't be another year before they could fly it.
Before I retired I sat in on telephone conversations with Canadian and Australian regulators. I assume the foreign aviation authorities had similar sharing agreements with the FAA. After this how can Canada, EU or China trust American aviation oversight? Boeing and Congress shot the American aircraft industry in the foot just to make a little more money for themselves.I would recommend reading Richard Feyman's "What do you care what other people think?" section on his experiences on the Roger's Commission report not so much for the O-ring investigation but on the absurdity of NASA's bizarre risk assessment methodology.Fred , 06 June 2019 at 06:22 PM
It is also an interesting insight into the workings of such commissions - with the other members happily taking the NASA guided tour while he found the techies and grilled them on how risk assessments were calculated. He refused to sign the final report unless he was allowed to add a critical appendix.
The gist of which can be found in the Wikipedia's
It is a long time since I read it so my apologies if I have mis-remebered anything.Bablefish,BabelFish -> Fred ... , 06 June 2019 at 06:49 PM
As I understand it the design issues revolve around engine size and placement used to avoid redesign, retooling and testing associated with an entire new airframe. To compensate a software system controlled flap position during takeoff/landing and was active during all operations. Added to this was utilization of a single " single pitch sensor or AOA (angle of attack) sensor. The jet has two,..." Thus a single point of failure causes a catastrophic failure of the flap positioning. In addition training for certification was set at as little as one hour?
A few basic questions come to mind. What was the cost of this generation of Max-8s? What was the actual installed cost of the second AOA sensor (not the price they wanted to charge.) That marginal cost just sunk a few billion off the company revenue stream. Who in executive leadership thought that option, only one AOA sensor, was a reasonable design to take to market? In addition who in the pilots union was willing to accept a single hour of training time as valid in transfering to a new airframe?Fred, it reminds me so much of Challenger. Who in the Astronaut Office was OK with the O-Ring reports? Just collective numbness to the possibility that this was introducing a huge risk factor.walrus , 06 June 2019 at 07:16 PM
More than that, what about the mechanisms to alert Boeing and the airlines that something was seriously amiss? Even before the Lion Air crash pilots were reporting unacceptable incidents with MCAS. As I said, corporate cultures are lethal to anyone who is perceived as messing with the gravy train.Thank you so much for your clear description of the Boeing problem. I worked in airline engineering for six years and visited Seattle, Renton and Everett a lot. I watched the 767 prototype being built - large lumps of black painted pine bolted to the airframe representing stuff yet to be delivered.SAC Brat said in reply to walrus ... , 06 June 2019 at 07:16 PM
Vietnam Vets comments regarding the mcdonnell douglas merge are to the point. The Boeing I dealt with was run by engineers with humility. Whenever I dealt with McDonnell Douglas it was always "what would you know? you're just a user. We designed the DC3'. They $5@#ed Boeing management.
Fred, this is not a simple engineering failure with a single cause. It is not linear. The failure involves aspects of marketing, pilot training, design, manufacture, operational practice, procedures, documentation regulations and oversight and of course money. There is never one single cause. This truism is encapsulated in Prof. James Reasons "swiss cheese model" of accident causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_modelA characteristic I do not care for with the 737 was that with the 737NG series Boeing, probably due to their larger customers' requests, did not upgrade the avionics package from the earlier architecture. They stayed with two air data systems and no central maintenance system.
Airbus with the A320 family in the 1980s used three air data systems and a maintenance computer. This architecture, seen in all Airbus aircraft since and Boeing 747-400s, 777s and 787s allows the addition of another layer of safety by allowing trend monitoring of aircraft system health from telemetry. The industry is at a point where data storage is large and cost effective, and now analysis tools are being developed to alert accidences. This allows alerting of trends before the flight crews see in-service problems.
Jun 05, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
May 31, 2019 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield By Justin Mikulka, a freelance writer, audio and video producer living in Trumansburg, NY. Originally published at DeSmog Blog
This week, the Trump administration's Department of Transportation (DOT) withdrew another rail safety recommendation originally proposed during the Obama administration. In the process, the agency made quite clear that it has no plans to further regulate the rail industry, especially the dangerous and continued transportation of oil and ethanol in unsafe tank cars.
The latest proposed rule to be withdrawn would have required two-person crews on trains. Supporters of this rule argue that two-person crews are safer because the job of operating a train is too demanding for one person, new technologies are making the job more complex, and fatigue becomes a more serious issue with only one crew member. Since 2017, the Trump administration has already repealed a regulation requiring modern brakes for oil trains and canceled a plan requiring train operators to be tested for sleep apnea.
In announcing this decision, the DOT's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) stated it was "providing notice of its affirmative decision that no regulation of train crew staffing is necessary or appropriate for railroad operations to be conducted safely at this time."
Buried on page 21 of the 25 page document explaining the decision, the FRA spells out the broader department attitude toward rail safety:
"DOT's approach to achieving safety improvements begins with a focus on removing unnecessary barriers and issuing voluntary guidance, rather than regulations that could stifle innovation."
As we've documented on DeSmog before , that translates to removing existing safety requirements and allowing the rail industry to volunteer when and how to improve safety. When the head of the FRA is a former rail company CEO , corporate capture of the U.S.regulatory system should come as no surprise. The rail industry's main opposition to this rule is that it will increase costs while claiming it will not improve safety. This is the same basic argument used to support the industry's opposition to other safety regulations.
FRA Overriding States' Rights to Regulate Rail Safety
North Dakota oil train. Credit: Jerry and Pat Donaho , CC BY-ND2.0
In addition, this FRA memo contained several statements clarifying that not only will the agency back off of regulating rail safety, it also will use the power of "pre-emption" to make sure states can't fill the resulting regulatory gaps either.
As we have explained before , rail companies are essentially only accountable to federal regulators (should they choose to regulate) due to a legal doctrine known as "pre-emption," which exempts interstate rail companies from observing local or state laws where they operate.
This is important in this instance because several states have passed laws regarding train crew staffing, and other states are considering such regulation. The FRA notes in detail these state efforts and then says that its decision not to regulate crew size preempts any such rules at the state level:
"FRA intends this notice of withdrawal to cover the same subject matter as the state laws regulating crew size and therefore expects it will have preemptive effect."
The document goes on to cite Supreme Court case law in an attempt to justify this approach and then reiterates the point in its final line, saying that "no regulation of train crew staffing is appropriate and that FRA intends to negatively preempt any state laws concerning that subject matter."
On December 31, 2013, part of the tank car pileup and residual fire resulting from the train collision near Casselton, North Dakota. Credit: National Transportation Safety Board , public domain
With this document, the FRA likely is setting up a precedent to follow for regulating the volatility and vapor pressure of crude oil transported by rail. DeSmog has covered in detail the issue of oil volatility , which appears to be the key for turning oil trains into "bomb trains," as rail operators have dubbed them.
The last remaining rail safety proposal on the books from the Obama administration concerns the vapor pressure of oil in rail tank cars, but that was proposed in 2017 and the DOT website lists the status of this proposed rule as "undetermined."
Meanwhile, the state of Washington has passed a law regulating the vapor pressure of oil for rail transport. This law is being challenged by North Dakota -- the source of many of the bomb trains involved in fiery accidents, including the Lac-Mégantic, Canada, disaster that killed 47 people in 2013 and helped inspire the proposed rule requiring two-person crews that the Trump adminstration just withdrew this week.
Based on the FRA's strategy with the rail staffing rule, expect to see the Trump administration withdraw the proposed regulation on oil vapor pressure and say this move preempts Washington state's law.
A Case Study in the Corporate Capture of American Regulation
The FRA's decision to withdraw the train crew rule is a great case study of a failed regulatory system in America.
The public is supposed to have a say in the regulatory process via the public comment process. In this case, approximately 1,500 comments supported the regulation -- including comments from members of Congress -- and 39 opposed it. The opposition highlighted by the DOT was from rail lobbying groups the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. While the public can have its say, it may not have any impact in the current regulatory process.
The FRAdocument also notes that the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC reviewed the issue but "was unable to reach consensus on any recommendation." RSAC was established by the FRA but is dominated by industry members, including the Association of American Railroads and the American Petroleum Institute , the latter of which is the nation's largest oil lobby and has repeatedly misrepresented basic facts about crude oil volatility and rail transport.
This advisory committee doesn't have the membership to make an independent recommendation that goes against its members' interests.
Screen shot of RSAC members from the Federal Railroad Administration website.
Another key point in the FRA's withdrawal decision is that it claims there is no evidence that two-person crews are safer than single-person crews on trains. The agency cites industry-funded studies, which make this claim and say the regulation would "greatly reduce U.S.railroads' ability to control operating costs." Because the FRAitself does not collect data on the use and safety of single-person crews versus two-person crews, it can't provide any information one way or the other.
The one clear scenario where two-person crews increase safety is in accident situations, a point made by many commenters and acknowledged by the FRA. In the 2013 BNSF oil train derailment and explosion in Casselton, North Dakota , crew members were able to separate many of the oil tank cars from the rest of the train, likely preventing a much larger oil spill and fire (which were still large). The FRA argues that while this is true, the same role can be played by first responders:
"While FRA acknowledges the BNSF key train crew performed well, potentially saving each other's lives, it is possible that one properly trained crewmember, technology, and/or additional railroad emergency planning could have achieved similar mitigating actions."
Despite making this assertion, the agency provided no evidence of how these alternatives are possible. In the case of oil train accidents, there are no examples of first responders arriving in time to do anything other than back away from the often-explosive trains and let them burn.
In the case of Casselton, the city fire chief Tim McLean said, "I'm glad the crew made it out of the engine because I don't know if we would have been able to get in there and get them." Casselton's first responders were working to evacuate the city, not deal with the exploding train cars.
'Keeping their Profits'
Two years ago, I wrote about the Trump administration's and Congress's plans to de-regulate the oil-by-rail industry , and featured a quote from Rep. Bill Shuster, who championed finding ways to "allow the railroad industry to keep more of their profits" at a hearing on pipeline and rail regulations .
With rail companies now comfortably positioned to self-regulate under the Trump administration, the industry can continue its long (and, at times, bloody ) history of putting profits over safety. The Department of Transportation's latest move makes this approach official government policy.
On July 9, 2014, 350 Sacramento joins California Assemblymember Roger Dickinson for an oil-by-rail protest at the Federal Railroad Administration. Credit: Stand , CC BY 2.0
VietnamVet , May 31, 2019 at 3:45 am
Mile long trains manned by one crew member are accidents waiting to happen. This will kill and maim people. Commercial airliners have a two-person cockpit crews for a good reason. An improperly tied down train by the sole engineer killed 43 in Canada. A conductor not calling out signals and signs contributed to killing three in Amtrak's 2017 Talgo crash onto I-5 in Washington State. A single engineer is subject to fatigue and distraction with no one to snap them out of it. A second crew member can check for problems, set brakes, and switch tracks while the engineer stays on board the running locomotive. This is solely a safety issue.
Each new death will be on the corporations and regulators pushing this to increase their profits. If promulgated, they deserve jail time for manslaughter with the next inevitable death.
The Rev Kev , May 31, 2019 at 5:35 am
If the two-driver rule is being withdrawn, then I see one major reason for this. Those companies must be planning on using autonomous trains down the track, so to say. The driver would then become more a monitor than a driver and perhaps be done away with altogether due to the fact that the job would be too fatiguing for a single driver. This is happening elsewhere. Here in Oz, the Rio Tito Group has been using autonomous trains since last July to transport iron ore using its "AutoHaul" system. Last I heard, they were running about three dozen of these robot trains a day. Here is a short clip showing the initial run-
Of course there are two major differences between Oz and the US with the use of these trains if the US brings them in. The ones in Oz go through the Pilbara and from that film clip, you can see that it is pretty barren country people-wise. An autonomous train in the US would run through a lot of small towns and perhaps cities. The ones in the US would also be transporting oil and that film clip from Casselton, North Dakota shows what happens when they go bump. The ones in Oz are use for transporting iron ore and after intense internet research, I have found that there is no situation in which they will ever explode in a train crash/derailment.
Jeremy Grimm , May 31, 2019 at 12:55 pm
I think you're right about the a plan to replace human drivers with autonomous trains monitored by a human. I didn't realize human train drivers [R.R. engineers?] were so very expensive that using one instead of two and eventually one 'monitor' instead of one driver were such a great savings. Are the railroad companies going to be indemnified against accident risks in some other pending deregulations? Maybe they could contract out for the train-monitors and hang any accident risk on fly-by-night contracting firms and any train-monitor who is so lucky as to survive an accident. What of the rails? I road trains cross-country last year and a lot of the ride was wavy and bumpy. How smart are the autonomous trains?
Synoia , May 31, 2019 at 4:07 pm
How smart are the autonomous trains?
Smart enough to do precisely what management tells them to do.
Edward , May 31, 2019 at 7:00 am
"Because the FRAitself does not collect data on the use and safety of single-person crews versus two-person crews, it can't provide any information one way or the other."
Other countries might have studied this question.
This sounds like what happened with Boeing and the FAA. Now all we need is for the railroad CEO's to have backgrounds in the military-industrial complex.
Svante , May 31, 2019 at 7:01 am
I'm waiting for 15-20 cars full of dilute bitumen to derail & explode directly across from Manhattan. There're ALWAYS bomb trains shunted alongside AMTRAK's NE Corridor where 130mph Acela are passing 80-90mph trains on decrepit infrastructure. Just waiting to happen, like any shithole kleptocracy.
Edward , May 31, 2019 at 7:10 am
"I'm waiting for 15-20 cars full of dilute bitumen to derail & explode directly across from Manhattan."
Hopefully next to a Trump property. Is this rule actually going to save the train companies money? How expensive are these accidents? Perhaps the real question is how many CEO bonuses can be milked from this rule.
Svante , May 31, 2019 at 7:30 am
Well, we've been TOLD, there'll be another (fracked PA CNG fired?) power plant going into North Bergen, we hear trains across the Hudson all night. Heavy cars, here, usually means tankers, heading to NJ refineries? I was in Huston with Texas Eastern's GREAT old inspection boss when they blew up part of Edison, NJ. A failed tie-in weld, cracked by a backhoe or something, in cold weather. They had windows breaking up here, in the UWS? A 36″ line, rolled at Bethlehem/ Steelton, or some damn thing? Shit happens? Don't live in a valley!
Ptb , May 31, 2019 at 8:10 am
Score one for Warren Buffet
anarcheopteryx , May 31, 2019 at 10:20 am
One of the more irritating indirect developments from this is that people can now say that 1) we are still reliant on oil 2) that oil needs to be transported 3) trains clearly aren't safe as a means of transportation 4) therefore pipelines are a better idea. It's gussied-up NIMBYism because pipelines usually don't travel through highly populated areas and only destroy the local environment for decades/centuries upon leaking rather than killing people directly. Obviously I'm all for tanker cars not exploding in the middle of communities, but I'm also not a great fan of the long-term loss of fresh water and the exporting of negative consequences to poor/rural/indigenous people.
Carolinian , May 31, 2019 at 12:34 pm
This is similar to this morning's glyphosate issue. Once again, where is Congress? The administration enforces the laws but Congress is supposed to oversee. To busy fretting over Mueller?
Jeremy Grimm , May 31, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Where is Congress? Gathering campaign contributions everyone and assuring a lucrative job for later. The administration enforces the laws and Congress oversees that process with the same careful attention to the public good we enjoy from the administration's efforts. Mueller is purely for entertainment.
It isn't bad enough that we face multiple threats to our future, endless wars, nuclear war, Climate Chaos, resource depletion, crumbling infrastructure Neoliberalism seems intent on constructing as much fragility as possible into our already fragile Society.
Synoia , May 31, 2019 at 4:08 pm
And determining when we go to war ..Right?
Svante , June 1, 2019 at 1:25 pm
The Legislature, (especiallyTHIS Executive), Judiciary & Media are at work, as most of us knew by draft age. Trump is the Boogieman this time, like Obama & Shrub before him. He's distracting the 10% Pussyhat hordes as Barack did with CNBC/ FOX's totally spontaneous baggers. Poisoned air, water, food: RussiaRussiaRussia; National Healthcare including longterm homecare & price/quality control on meds: RussiaRussiaRussia; Run-away global warming, worse than anticipated: RussiaRussiaRussia; Police shooting down folks in their motor vehicles or home, at WILL, without repercussions You guessed it: RussiaRussiaRussia! Thi IS their job!
Jun 02, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
VietnamVet , Jun 2, 2019 4:07:26 PM | 11The NY Times article misses the whole point of why two 737 Max(s) crashed: 1) Boeing's self-certification of the safety of their airplanes and 2) the corporate drive to increase shareholder value and C-Suite Bonuses.
Both assured that there was no oversight.
There was no person who didn't risk losing their job and livelihood if they pointed out that MCAS violated the federal commercial flight regulations which prohibits a single sensor on flight critical systems.
This is the same as the restart of the Cold War due to "Russian Aggression" or the use of proxy radical forces to instigate regime change.
If corporate media does not report factual news but regurgitates propaganda endlessly then nothing will ever be fixed. Out of control systems kill people.
Zachary Smith | Jun 2, 2019 4:11:51 PM | 14
Regarding the 737 MAX, today's news stories are filled with stuff like this:SEOUL, June 2 (Reuters) - Airlines urged regulators on Sunday to coordinate on software changes to the Boeing 737 MAX in a bid to avoid damaging splits over safety seen when the aircraft was grounded in March.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), whose 290 carriers account for 80 percent of world flying, said trust in the certification system had been damaged by a wave of separate decisions to ground the jet, with the U.S. last to act.
Airlines are worried further differences between regulators over safety could confuse passengers and cause disruption.
Lot of double-talk there. "Confuse passengers" is another way of saying that if the US lets the airplane fly before anybody else does, hardly anyone will believe the thing is safe. Crazy Trumpies + wet-noodle FAA + indifferent Boeing -- that's not a comforting situation at all.
I won't be surprised if the EU and China aren't VERY late with their approvals of the 737 'fixes'. They're probably getting tired of being kicked around by the Trumpies and this is a no-brainer way of getting some revenge. Who can quarrel with wanting to keep airplane passengers as safe as possible?
Zachary Smith | Jun 2, 2019 5:00:16 PM | 17
Yet another reason to turn off that damned 737 spotlight:Some Boeing 737 MAX planes may have faulty parts: FAA June 2, 2019 / 3:20 PM
Whistleblower tales describe how this sort of thing has been going on for a long time. For now though, the FAA has to pretend to be a real regulatory agency.
Yeah, Right | Jun 2, 2019 7:05:06 PM | 26
I took the NYT's article as being the first step by Boeing to set up their chief test pilot as the fall-guy for the entire 737Max fiasco.
It certainly reads that way: the feature was initially intended only for high-speed, high-end. Then the test pilot found low-speed handling was iffy, so he decided that it should always be active.
And everyone at Boeing just.... agreed.... without really understanding what they were agreeing to.
Because, you know, nobody dares to argue with a test pilot...
Zachary Smith | Jun 2, 2019 7:17:00 PM | 29
@ Yeah, Right | Jun 2, 2019 7:05:06 PM #26
Good post! Boeing has already tried to crucify the ignorant/untrained "third world" pilots of the airplanes which went down. Why not try again with another pilot patsy? It might work. If it doesn't, wonder what plan "C" will be?
May 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
The fleet of Boeing 737 MAX planes will stay out on the ground longer than anticipated. Boeing promised a new software package to correct the severe problems with its Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). The delivery was supposed to be ready in April. A month later it has still not arrived at the Federal Aviation Agency where it will take at least a month to certify it. The FAA will not be the only one to decide when the plane can come back into the flight line. Other country's agencies will do their own independent review and will likely take their time.
The 737 MAX incident also revealed a problem with older generations of the 737 type of plane that is only now coming into light. Simulator experiments (video) showed that the recovery procedures Boeing provided for the case of a severe mistrim of the plane is not sufficient to bring the plane back under control. The root cause of that inconvenient fact does not lie with the 737 MAX but with its predecessor, the Boeing 737 Next Generation or NG.
This was known in pilot circles for some time but will only now receive wider public attention :The Boeing 737 Max's return to commercial airline service is reportedly being further delayed by the Federal Aviation Administration.
US government officials told The Wall Street Journal's Andy Pasztor that the FAA is evaluating the emergency procedures for not only the Max but also the older generations of the 737 including the [once] hot-selling Boeing 737 NG.
According to the officials, the broadened evaluation will take a look at how pilots of all 737 variant are instructed to respond to emergency situations.
Here is a detailed explanation why the FAA is now looking into the pilot training for older 737 types.
The 737 NG (-600/-700/-800/-900) was the third generation derivative of the 737 and followed the 737 Original (-100/-200) and Classic (−300/-400/-500) series. The first NG flew in 1997. Some 7,000 were build and most of them are still flying.
Two technical modifications that turned out to be a problem during the recent incidents occurred during the redesign of the 737 Classic into the New Generation series.
In the NG series a new Flight Management Computer (FMC) was added to the plane. (The FMC helps the pilots to plan and manage the flight. It includes data about airports and navigation points. It differs from the two Flight Control Computers in that it has no control over physical elements of the plane.)
The FMC on the NG version has two input/output units each with a small screen and a larger keyboard below it. They are next to the knees of the pilot and the copilot They are located on the central pedestal between the pilots right below the vertical instrument panel (see pic below). The lengthy FMCs did not fit on the original central pedestal. The trim wheels on each side, used to manually trim the airplane in its longitudinal axis or pitch, were in the way. Boeing's 'solution' to the problem was to make the manual trim wheels smaller.
737 NG cockpit with FMC panels and with smaller trim wheels (black with a white stripe)
737 Original-200 cockpit with larger trim wheels (black with a white stripe)
The smaller trim wheels require more manual force to trim with the same moment of force or torque than the larger ones did.
Another change from the 737 Classic to the 737 NG was an increase in the size of the rear horizontal flight surface, the stabilizer.
The stabilizer at the rear of the plane can be turned around a central pivot point. The natural nose up or nose down characteristics of an airplane change during a flight depending on the speed at which the airplane flies. The stabilizer can be moved during a flight by a jackscrew (vid) which is turned by either an electric motor, or via cables from the manually hand-cranked trim wheels in the cockpit. Trimming the airplane keeps it level at all flyable speeds.
At the rear end of the stabilizer is the elevator surface (blue arrow in the pic below). The elevator is moved by the column or yoke the pilot uses to control the plane. During a flight the pilot, or an automated stabilizer trim system (STS), will electrically trim the stabilizer so that no additional force on the column is required for the plane to stay at its flight level.
In case of a mistrim of the stabilizer, the plane puts its nose up or down and the pilot will have to push or pull his column to move the elevator to counter the mistrim of the stabilizer. Depending on the position of the stabilizer and the speed of the airplane this can require very significant force. In some cases it might be impossible.
Graphic via The Air Current and Peter Lemme - bigger
The size of the stabilizer increased from 31.40 square meter on the Classic to 32.78 sqm on the NG and MAX. Meanwhile the size of the elevator, the primary control surface the pilot can use to counter a mistrimmed stabilizer, was kept at its original size of 6.55 sqm.
It is therefore more difficult for the pilot of a 737 NG or 737 MAX plane to use the elevator to counter a mistrimmed stabilizer than it was on the earlier 737 Classic series.
In 1961 a mistrimmed stabilizer on a Boeing 707 caused the crash of an airplane. All on board died. The root cause was a malfunction in the electrical switch the pilot normally uses to electrically move the stabilizer. The switch stuck in an ON position and the motor moved the stabilizer to its most extreme position. The plane's nose went up until it aerodynamically stalled. The pilots were unable to recover from the situation.
The type of incident where an electric malfunction drives the stabilizer into an extreme position is since known as a 'runaway stabilizer'.
To get a type rating for Boeing planes the pilots have to learn a special procedure to diagnose and correct a runaway stabilizer situation. The procedure is a so called 'memory item'. The pilots must learn it by heart. The corrective action is to interrupt the electric circle that supplies the motor which drives the jackscrew and moves the stabilizer. The pilots then have to use the hand-cranked trim wheels to turn the jackscrew and to bring the stabilizer back into a normal position.
737 stabilizer jackscrew - bigger
[The MCAS incidents on the crashed 737 MAX were not of the classic runaway stabilizer type. A runaway stabilizer due to an electric malfunction is expected to move the stabilizer continuously. The computerized MCAS operated intermittently. It moved the stabilizer several times, with pauses in between, until the mistrim became obvious. The pilots would not have diagnosed it as a runaway stabilizer. Only in the end are the effects of both problems similar.]
A third change from older 737s to newer types involved the manuals and the pilot training.
If due to a runaway stabilizer event the front end of the stabilizer moves up, the nose of the airplane will move down and the plane will increase its speed. To counter that the pilot pulls on his column to move the rear end of the elevator up and to bring the plane back towards level flight. As the plane comes back to level the aerodynamic pressure on the mistrimmed stabilizer increases. Attempts to manually trim in that situation puts opposing forces on the jackscrew that holds the stabilizer in its positions. The aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer can become so big that a manual cranking of the trim wheel can no longer move the jackscrew and thereby the stabilizer.
Until the introduction of the newer 737 types Boeing's pilot manuals for the 737 included a procedure that described how to overcome the situation. It was counterintuitive. If the stabilizer put the plane in an extreme nose down position the pilot was advised to first pull the column to decrease the speed. He then had to push the column forward to lower the aerodynamic forces that blocked the jackscrew. Then the manual trim wheel could be turned a bit while the plane continued to dive and again increased its speed. The procedure had to be repeated several times: pull column to decrease speed; push column to decrease the aerodynamic force on the stabilizer and its jackscrew; trim manually; repeat. The technic was known as the rollercoaster maneuver.
Excerpt from an old 737-200 manual - via The Air Current - bigger
Recently some pilots used a 737 NG flight simulator to test the procedure. They simulated the runaway stabilizer case at a height of 10,000 feet and use the rollercoaster maneuver to recover from the mistrim. When they finally had the stabilizer back into a correct trim position they found themselves at 3,000 feet height. The maneuver would thus help only when the plane is already at a significant height above ground.
Both of the recent 737 MAX crashes happened shortly after the start. The rollercoaster maneuver would not have helped those flights. But should a runaway stabilizer incident happen on a 737 NG at its normal flight level the maneuver would probably be the only chance to recover from the situation.
The crashes of the two 737 MAX revealed a number of problems with the design of the MCAS system. Several additional issues with the plane have since become known. There may be other problems with its 737 MAX that no one yet learned of. The rather casual FAA certification of the type was clearly not justified.
But the problems described above are 737 NG problems. The 380 or so existing 737 MAX are currently grounded. But some 7,000 737 NG fly about every day. The record provides that it is a relatively safe airplane. But a runaway stabilizer is a well known electrical malfunction that could by chance happen on any of those flights.
The changes from the 737 Classic to the 737 NG make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the pilots to recover from such a situation:
- The smaller manual trim wheels on the 737 NG make it more difficult to trim a runaway stabilizer back into a regular position.
- The larger stabilizer surface makes it more difficult to counter a runaway stabilizer by using the elevator which was kept at the same size.
- 737 NG pilots no longer learn the rollercoaster maneuver that is now the only way to recover from a severe mistrim.
Simulator sessions demonstrate (video) that a runaway stabilizer incident on a 737 NG can no longer be overcome by the procedures that current Boeing manuals describe.
It is pure luck that no NG crash has yet been caused by a runaway stabilizer incident. It is quite astonishing that these issues only now become evident. The 737 NG was certified by the FAA in 1997. Why is the FAA only now looking into this?
The second 737 MAX crash revealed all these issues to a larger public. Except for MCAS the trim systems on the NG and MAX are similar. The Ethiopian Airline flight 302 did not experience a runaway stabilizer, but the multiple engagement of MCAS moved the stabilizer to a similar extreme position. The pilots cut the electricity to the stabilizer motor and tried to re-trim the plane manually by turning the trim wheels. The aerodynamic forces on the stabilizer were impossible to overcome. The pilots had not learned of the rollercoaster maneuver. (Not that it would have helped much. They were too low to the ground.) They switched the motor back on to use manual electrical trim to re-trim the aircraft. Then MCAS engaged again and put them into the ground.
All NG and MAX pilots should learn the rollercoaster maneuver, preferable during simulator training. There are probably some 50,000 pilots who are certified to fly a Boeing NG. It will be an enormous and costly effort to put all of them through additional training.
But it will be more costly, for all involved, if a 737 NG crashes and kills all on board due to a runaway stabilizer incident and a lack of pilot training to overcome it. Such an incident would probably keep the whole NG fleet on the ground.
Pilots, airlines and the public should press the FAA to mandate that additional training. The FAA must also explain why it only now found out that the problem exists.
Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 issues:
- Boeing, The FAA, And Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 12 2019
- Flawed Safety Analysis, Failed Oversight - Why Two 737 MAX Planes Crashed - March 17 2019
- Ethiopian Airline Crash - Boeing Advice To 737 MAX Pilots Was Flawed - April 9 2019
Additional sources with more technical details:
- Vestigal Design Issues Cloud 737 MAX Crash Investigation - Jan Ostrower, The Air Current
- Stabilizer Trim - Peter Lemme, Satcom Guru
- Trim Cutout with Severe Out-of-Trim Stabilizer can be difficult to recover - Peter Lemme, Satcom Guru
- Professional Pilots Rumors Forum and News - Various authors in a number of 737 threads, PPRuNe
Posted by b on May 25, 2019 at 05:20 PM | Permalink
JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 25, 2019 6:11:07 PM | 1I feel as though I've read an expert's analysis on the Boeing 737 problems.the pair , May 25, 2019 6:18:40 PM | 2
And a very clearly written one indeed.
Thanks.on the one hand a thorough and impressive look at the subject. on the other hand i'm getting on a 737 next week and this adds to my already profound anxiety about flying. good times.Walter , May 25, 2019 6:54:14 PM | 3Very clearly stated description of how "accidents" get engineered, baked-into, into big and complex machines and systems. Wonderful.psychohistorian , May 25, 2019 7:13:08 PM | 4
Raises material questions about defects in regulation of airplane safety, and how that happens (can you spell "m-o-n-e-y"?) and why (repeat spelling). Regulatory Capture? Geewhiz...yatink?
Feynman's classic report on the Challenger "accident" exposes the same sort of matter.
Feynman also tells a story about Oak Ridge in the building of the plant to separate isotopes - he knew nothing of blue-prints and they showed him reams of paper, he spotted a little rectangle with an X in side..."what happens if this opens" he said (if I recall rightly) Of course he thought it looked like a window, but in the language of blueprints it was, of course, a valve.... Turned out it was a lucky question, well, maybe not for Japan...
When you build stuff or operate it one must always ask, at every junction, what if?... This is true of driving, of motorcycles, airplanes, boats, and probably taking a bath.Another excellent description of the Boeing profit cancer.Ghost Ship , May 25, 2019 7:24:24 PM | 5
Where are the cost/benefit analysis that were done to justify the profit over safety moves of Boeing? Some people are making big bucks by putting the public more at risk for profit.
Who are they and why are they not in jail?
If corporations are people like Mitt Romney says then why is Boeing not under arrest?
If we can't arrest Boeing then why not the leadership that made the profit over safety decisions? Certainly there is a paper trail.
Boeing is now like Trump by putting a clear face on the sickness that is the West governed by the elite who own global private finance and everything else.
And this sickness is having a hissy fit because it knows it can't compete against China's mixed economy and they won't let the elite own China finance.
Public versus private finance is the war that humanity is waging even though it is presented by the West as all these spinning plates of other things.
Boeing needs to be driven into bankruptcy, just like empire is being driven, to put consequences to the cancer of profit over safety.When is Trump going to declare that Airbus is a threat to American national security and sanction it like Huawei?dh , May 25, 2019 7:26:52 PM | 6Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't every single transport-category aircraft made since the Boeing 707, including Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier, used a jackscrew to position the horizontal stabilizer?dan , May 25, 2019 7:42:54 PM | 7Ah shit. I'll have to postpone my purchase of 737s now. How on earth will I now jetset the globe?Walter , May 25, 2019 7:48:28 PM | 8
First world problems, huh...Jackscrews are, in most older cars and most trucks,and most machine tools the way the controls and steering works. They are ordinary, simple, and nearly foolproof. The article does not blame the jackscrew. Sometimes corrosion and maintenance issues, and rarely, manufacturing defects, can happen...nothing like that at issue in these two failure patters.dh , May 25, 2019 7:54:47 PM | 9
I have seen exactly one jackscrew failure, and it still worked ok, and I have had in my hands hundreds of jackscrews torn down for analysis.
The failures at hand have to do with a dead-short between the ears associated with Big Bucks and "fictionalized capitalism" - they faked it, pencil whipped the job...as we used to say when I worked for the Army...@8 Thank you Walter. I'm not an engineer...just trying to pinpoint the stabilizer problem. Faulty electronics? Overloaded trim wheels? Bad design or capitalist greed?Pft , May 25, 2019 8:13:11 PM | 0
B explained it very well but is the problem unique to Boeing?Unlike the recent MCAS issues on a new aircraft I suspect runaway trim on 737 NG is a rare event most pilots only experience in the simulator (unlike in the 60's-70's on other models) .In over 20 years of flying (737 NG) has their ever been a crash due to runaway trim? Just asking as I don't know.dh , May 25, 2019 8:14:56 PM | 1
This does not mean the procedures should not be corrected and additional training done.Just an exercise.....do not try this at home....james , May 25, 2019 8:18:07 PM | 2
thanks b.. that is discouraging to hear... it is interesting seeing the faa's role in all of this.. it reminds me of the role of the opcw and what was, or wasn't shared in the report on douma... at some point these agencies need to be scrutinized more aggressively... the author andersons of enron keep rearing their ugly heads..james , May 25, 2019 8:19:31 PM | 3@11 dh... my house isn't that big!!!Yeah, Right , May 25, 2019 8:27:25 PM | 4Just curious, but has any airline ever reported a runaway stabilizer on a 737NG?Miss Lacy , May 25, 2019 8:30:25 PM | 5
Obviously no 737NG has crashed from such an event, but if there is a runaway stabilizer incident then the airline is (I assume) obliged to report it to the FAA. Is that data available to the public?To b; Thank you. to Walter also thank you for most informative comments. To dh #9. No way is the problem unique to Boeing. Where was that walk way/over pass which collapsed the day after it opened killing several? The Carolina's? Georgia? How about Becktel's Big Dig? The roof tiles fell in the airport tunnel killing how many? Oops no links. Wait waitSam F , May 25, 2019 8:51:41 PM | 6
What about the atrium walk way in???? City in the US midwest. Undersized bolts. The whole thing fell down at the opening celebration. Deflection won. Cost cutting lost. Scores died. Famous engineering maxims: Two is one and one is none. Keep it simple stupid.
I vote that all airline pilots get a raise and more vacation time.Great analysis, thank you B.jared , May 25, 2019 9:35:38 PM | 7
Clearly then even the old 737 is unsafe below 7,000 feet and probably higher for unprepared or unsuspecting pilots, because the recovery maneuver causes at least that altitude loss, and the 737 NG is further unsafe in cases where the recovery maneuver does not work.
The problem is skimping on error handling processes, the most costly, critical, and invisible part of critical systems design. Skimping is universal where profit motive governs, and infects regulators via bribes and regulatory capture. Where disasters will result very rarely, the skimping remains invisible, the investors count their gains and donate to the parties that control regulatory agencies, and managers are promoted and retire. The value of a human life is adjusted to zero by sociopathic investors and their preferred corporate managers.So basically the post is stating that boing and the faa have a culture of overlooking safety issues - no blood no foul (until there is blood).snake , May 25, 2019 10:38:15 PM | 8
Boing and faa would like to point the finger at pilots, birds, weather, God... etc. Lastly faa and boing will be leaking blame directed at each other and then it will be that you cant actually punish government employees and then boing is major military contractor and strategically important - too big to fail.
Basically, they have both been shown to be unreliable. Fatal to the faa, maybe to boing, maybe to passengers.Unlike the recent MCAS issues on a new aircraft I suspect runaway trim on 737 NG is a rare event most pilots only experience in the simulator (unlike in the 60's-70's on other models) .In over 20 years of flying (737 NG) has their ever been a crash due to runaway trim? Just asking as I don't know. This d\n mean the procedures s\n\b corrected and additional training done. by: Pft @10 <= Re rime and clear ice builds, especially in low altitude (take off and approaches) where icing develops along moment arm @ local positions <= trim becomes a major frantic cockpit issue.. yeah, I know icing is never a problem in a modern life exchanged for profit aircraft..ben , May 25, 2019 10:56:58 PM | 9
Psychohistorian seated the hard nail into government protected corporate lumber (weed exterminator Monsanto , bomb makers everywhere and vision, hearing and heart -threatened calcium channel signal corrupting 5G energies come to mind. One drop of corporation greed = the early death for large numbers of expendable humans. but never fear the secret government is at work, protecting the corporate lords and their Oligarch owners from those of you who toil to earn a living.. what you governed humans don't know, those who govern you (the governors) intend to get Assange for telling you, because the corporation lords don't want you to know.
Never has there been a better case for independent of government, independent of corporate influence audits..
The entire flying public should be allowed to audit all of the aircraft designs, construction and management decisions and FAA activities and decisions from start to finish. The life of the passenger depends on the scope and quality of the audit.
There is a safe harbor rule in securities tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if you fail that requirement you must give the money investors gave you back to the investors. ..humm!Thanks b, for another expose on the current flaws in the U$A's brand of Capitalism.Cyril , May 25, 2019 11:15:18 PM | 0
As snake @ 18 says;"Never has there been a better case for independent of government, independent of corporate influence audits.."@Ghost Ship | May 25, 2019 7:24:24 PM | 5Jackrabbit , May 25, 2019 11:36:52 PM | 1
When is Trump going to declare that Airbus is a threat to American national security and sanction it like Huawei?
Probably after he attacks Toyota. Maybe he's starting on the Japanese company .Toyota Motor Corp. rebuked President Donald Trump's declaration that imported cars threaten U.S. national security, signaling contentious talks are ahead for the White House and America's key trading partners.I don't know much about commercial aircraft but even I can see that b has way ahead of other media in reporting about the Boeing/FAA clusterf*ck. Both in terms of timely info and depth of info.Cyril , May 26, 2019 12:31:56 AM | 2
Great work b!@Cyril | May 25, 2019 11:15:18 PM | 20Jen , May 26, 2019 12:33:54 AM | 3
Probably after he attacks Toyota.
Maybe Trump has already started going after Airbus :The United States wants to put tariffs on $11.2 billion worth of EU goods ... to offset what it says are unfair European subsidies for plane manufacturer Airbus.
How much of Boeing is vulnerable to a European retaliation? I know that the 737 Max uses LEAP-1BDear B,Cyril , May 26, 2019 12:35:31 AM | 4
Your post is likely to end up in some pilots' own custom-made manuals for reference if Boeing doesn't amend its current manuals or FAA doesn't mandate appropriate pilot training on the Boeing 737 MAX jets. Get ready to see it reprinted on other websites and blogs!Hmm... how did the "Post" button get pushed?psychohistorian , May 26, 2019 1:39:08 AM | 5
I meant to say...
[If Trump really goes after Airbus,] How much of Boeing is vulnerable to a European retaliation? I know that the 737 Max uses LEAP-1B engines, which are made by a joint venture between Safran (France) and General Electric (US). Anything else?@ Cyril with the great questions about potential implications of tariffs/sanctions to protect Boeing marketHoarsewhisperer , May 26, 2019 1:41:50 AM | 6
Tariffs and sanctions could be a temporary negotiating tactic or are a slippery slope that those in control of global private finance are willing to let Boeing and other US industry leaders have to endure as long as global private finance stays viable in the world....throwing America under the bus to save the scions of empire.
Is bringing the world economies to a halt via all these "bluffs" meant for some bigger purpose?....war by other means, perhaps?
Wait until the world gets to anguish over nations debt position as part of all the fear mongering to save private finance profit while the public takes the losses in the shorts....it is all about getting and staying ahead of the narrative train....
Possibly off topic but...744748 , May 26, 2019 2:55:06 AM | 7
During the 1989 Airline Pilot's Strike in Oz, Labor & Union acolyte, PM Bob Hawke, solved the problem Neo-liberally by removing negotiating principles from the table and declaring a National Emergency. This empowered the airlines to sack all the recalcitrant pilots, thus reducing them to the status of truck drivers. I don't know if this was the beginning of the War On Pilots but I did read that the Captain of the plane which landed an airliner on the Hudson River, saving all on board, was on $19,000-00 p.a. and had a second job to make ends meet.
It seemed a bit short-sighted, to me, to reduce the perceived status of a group of highly-trained, and professional, airline pilots to well below the pay-scale status of qualified tradesmen and even some skilled laborers - possibly to the point of (voiceless) irrelevance?Small correction, the "NG" stands for NEXT Generation, not NEW Generation.BM , May 26, 2019 3:29:11 AM | 8
For once, Wikipedia is correct: wiki/Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation
As a former 737-300 (="Classic") and 737-700 (= "NG") pilot, I vividly remember from during the initial simulator training how difficult it was to manually trim the 737-700.
But hey, the joke in the pilot community is that "Boeing is a law firm that also makes aeroplanes."Boeing needs to be driven into bankruptcy, just like empire is being driven, to put consequences to the cancer of profit over safety.744748 , May 26, 2019 3:36:53 AM | 9
Posted by: psychohistorian | May 25, 2019 7:13:08 PM | 4
Absolutely and utterly agree! Those at the top of both Boeing and FAA also need to be tried for manslaughter and jailed for life.
The FAA also needs to be sanctioned by regulatory moves in EU, Russia, China and other countries which disallow all FAA certifications until the FAA have proven that the certifications were properly carried out, and validated by non-US agencies at FAA's cost. If they don't fully comply, threaten mass grounding of US-certified aircraft. There also needs to be a wide-ranging international investigation of FAA working practicies and conflicts of interests, with mandatory full disclosure (to all non-US aviation regulators and pilots unions) of all documentation and mandatory access to witnesses, again under threat of grounding of all US-certified aircraft in case of non-compliance. (It won't happen of course! There also need to similar investigations of working practices and conflicts of interest of EU aviation authorities - also won't happen, althought there might be investigations of very limited scope. Likewise for pharmaceuticals, pesticides and environmental hazards.)p.s. very well written article!Russ , May 26, 2019 4:13:32 AM | 0The FMC helps the pilots to plan and manage the flight. It includes data about airports and navigation points....The lengthy FMCs did not fit on the original central pedestal. The trim wheels on each side, used to manually trim the airplane in its longitudinal axis or pitch, were in the way. Boeing's 'solution' to the problem was to make the manual trim wheels smaller.744748 , May 26, 2019 5:04:39 AM | 1
In addition to the usual greed, we see how technocratic-engineering culture is at work here: A basically worthless "hi-tech" toy (the FMC) is considered far more important than an actual safety mechanism which is manual and therefore stupid from the technocratic POV. Indeed, from this culture's POV it's an absolute value to decrease human agency and action and increase computer agency, without regard to any kind of practicality, let alone something so mundane and boring as the safety of human beings.By the way, it's NEXT Generation, not NEW Generation.Edward , May 26, 2019 5:40:41 AM | 2
[Thank you. I have corrected my mistake. - b.]The trim wheel has a handle that folds out. A possible solution to this problem would be a handle that is extensible, giving a large lever arm, and which functions like a ratchet wrench.Khin Maung Thwin , May 26, 2019 6:07:59 AM | 3Very well noted and thank you for find out mistake.Ghost Ship , May 26, 2019 6:17:37 AM | 4The worse thing about American politicians is how cheaply they can be bought :Ghost Ship , May 26, 2019 6:32:29 AM | 5
Asking questions and making statements were 39 members of the House – 22 Democrats and 17 Republicans – who during the 2018 election cycle took in a total of $134,749 – or an average of $3,455 each from Boeing in campaign contributions.>>>> Edward | May 26, 2019 5:40:41 AM | 32Dao Gen , May 26, 2019 7:53:10 AM | 6
There isn't enough room , which is why they made the wheels smaller in the first place. Perhaps Boeing should switch to side sticks like Airbus .The structural defects in the 737 NG described so well by b are also relevant to the recent crashes of the 737 MAX, are they not? Several reports indicated that the pilots of the Ethiopian Airlines plane disconnected the MCAS system and tried to trim the aircraft manually but were unable to do so, and this problem with the manual trim system caused them to turn on the MCAS system again, with deadly results. It seems that the 737 MAX is even more dangerous due to its 737 NG legacy. In addition to all the other necessary changes, the manual trim wheel should be redesigned for the 737 MAX, the input from the pilot's yoke should be increased, and a special pilot training category should be established. All of this should have been mandated by the irresponsible FAA long ago. If the needed changes are not carried out, nationwide boycotts of Boeing and of 737 MAX flights should be organized and carried out.Edward , May 26, 2019 8:07:01 AM | 7Ghost Ship,b , May 26, 2019 8:41:57 AM | 8
That is why I suggested it operate like a ratchet in which the handle can be turned in small increments rather then a full circle:
Another solution could be to attach something like a car jack to the trim wheel which aids in turning it.@Dao Gen - The structural defects in the 737 NG described so well by b are also relevant to the recent crashes of the 737 MAX, are they not?Walter , May 26, 2019 8:55:24 AM | 9
Yes they are. The MAX crashes revealed that these issues had been 'forgotten'. That is why the FAA is now looking into the NG. I added a paragraph near the end to clarify that.I once ran "F&E shop, as the Army used to call them. Stands for "fuel and electronic" [repair], sort of a forward operating base shop, these economize the logistics necessary to support fleets. In that context machine parts, subsystems came in and we went through a process of "triage", testing and labeling each unit as it came in. Those units which we judged to be "BER" [beyond economical repair] got labeled as "N.G." (or NFG!) for "no good". Even though the Boeing FUBAR'd 737 is a deadly matter I found the appellation 737-NG to be vastly idiotic and amusing. Similarly amusing when Chevrolet named a car "no va" (doesn't go).Walter , May 26, 2019 9:21:31 AM | 0
Evidently Boeing ought to have named 737-MAX as 737-NFG....upon reflection, "737NG" = "737 No Good", and "737 Max" = 737 "No Fly Good", 'or perhaps "Max" = "Machine Actually eXpired"steve , May 26, 2019 9:33:30 AM | 1Does the 777 max have any trim systems similar to the 737? Given the 777 has an aluminum fuselage, does this mean the 787 was a mistake?sadness , May 26, 2019 9:35:59 AM | 2Next we'll learn that the 777 is even worse than this thing & that Malaysian Air's losses weren't Israel or the US.Gov's fault at all, just the few incompetent fools running the biz & the FAAWilliam Gruff , May 26, 2019 9:56:32 AM | 3snake @18 said: "Never has there been a better case for independent of government, independent of corporate influence audits."Arioch , May 26, 2019 10:04:49 AM | 4
But what kind of organization could conduct those audits? What can exist that is independent of business and its profit motives, which invite corruption, but also be independent of government while having some mechanism for being answerable to the public? Any effort to create such an organization will just recreate government.
We already have the answer: It is government regulation. We just need a deliberate impenetrable wall between government and business interests like we in America used to have between government and religion. We need to adjust our culture such that any politician promising to be "business-friendly" is as shunned as one promising to implement Sharia law. A revolution could probably accomplish this.> The trim wheel has a handle that folds out.b , May 26, 2019 10:06:12 AM | 5
...but it extends alonf the rotation axis, thus
1) it does not extend the "lever asm" (in russia it is called "shoulder" :-) ), just makes a better grip
2) like with piston engines, it has two "dead points (centres)". Piston engines solve it by having multiple pistons working in different phases and by having a flywheel. Both options can not be applied to this 737 wheel.
The video show it is exactly "dead points" that cause problems. When the handle-axis is orthogonal to axis-man, then the wheel is more or less rotated. But those "dead points" progressivle become more and more impassable.
> A possible solution to this problem would be a handle that is extensible, giving a large lever arm,
Would not do.
If it extends parallel to axis - it would not increase lever no matter how long it is.
If it extends orthogonal to axis - it would just get stuck against the wall and FMS stand.
> and which functions like a ratchet wrench.
Yep, or a removable stick, with the wheel having 8 or at least 6 wholes through the wheel's reborde.
This all, whoever, would
1) add extra complexcitiy, increasing weight and malfanction probability.
For example, how would electro-motors act, if the wheel is locked by the said ratchet?
For example, where to store the removable lever, so it would not be a nuisance during normal flights, but in emergency would be both easy to take and reliably fixed until being taken?
2) would probably decrease rotating speed yet more. Force-path trade-off....@steve Does the 777 max have any trim systems similar to the 737? Given the 777 has an aluminum fuselage, does this mean the 787 was a mistake?ADKC , May 26, 2019 10:10:17 AM | 6
The stabilizer trim via a jackscrew on the 777 is somewhat similar to the 737 though the jackscrew is much bigger.
It can be seen in this video at ~3:00 min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy-ARLZXXTA
There are many difference in the trim control. The 777 uses several independent hydraulic circles to run the hydraulic jackscrew motor. The 777 is fly-by-wire. There ar no longer manual trim wheels with long cables running to the stabilizer. All signals from the cockpit are electric to three independent system which then switch the hydraulic circles on/off as needed. There is an electric force feed back to give the pilots some 'feel' for the trim position in their columns.
The aluminum or carbon skin decision is relevant for weight. Carbon is more expensive as special care must be taken for flash impacts and other issues. But it is also a lot lighter that aluminum. The higher price will easily pay off.There is rightly a focus on the poor quality of work done by the FAA in authorising the Boeing 737 MAX (and, it now appears, that the same could be said about the authorisation of the NG). As stated by numerous articles the FAA were just relying on Boeing assessments and safety checks. However, these weaknesses in the authorisation process should really have been picked up by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and I fail to see how a competent body would fail to do so. So, the EASA is as useless as the FAA, and aircraft certifications are probably politically based rather than a rigorous safety and airworthiness check.Arioch , May 26, 2019 10:20:28 AM | 7
I would imagine that Boeing still intend to have the 737 MAX re-authorised by the FAA within a few months with the expectation that EASA approval will follow shortly after. The political motive will be to maintain the Boeing and Airbus duopoly (for mutual self-interest they both wish to preserve their respective market shares and not significantly challenge the other) rather than issues of safety. As far as I can see there are no politicians in the UK & Europe that are particularly interested or concerned about the issue (unfortunately).> and a special pilot training category should be establishedMeshpal , May 26, 2019 10:24:13 AM | 8
Posted by: Dao Gen | May 26, 2019 7:53:10 AM | 36
But this is marketing disaster, too train pilots.
- Ok, mr. seller, so we need to spend N hours and M thousand USD to make our pilots efficient at most fuel-economic flight and at pressing automatic take-=off and automatic landing buttons. Good. Make sense.
- Oh, not just that, mr. customer, you also need to spend 10x N hours and 10xM monet to train your pilots against emergencies.
- what emergencies
- Oh, you know, it would not ever be your problem, buyt jsut to make government happy, you nkow, those crazy government clerks shifting responsibilities for life, they want it be passed...
- So what exactly they need be protected from??? And why they make me pay for it?
- Well, you know, 100 years ago once in mankind history an aircraft - not Boeing our competitor's jet it was - it got into X and then Y and wheather was Z and they crashed with all people aboard lost. And then, 99 years ago, there was A and sun was like B and then.... and they crashed and 50% on board lost. And then there was K and if rain goes L and ....
- Okay, okay, got it. Your new Boeing is so unreliable shit, that 100 years later it still can get into X, A and K and everyone dies and our business dies too. And you think i am such an idiot you gonna sell me this unreliable gum-n-sticks shit? I will first buy Manhatten bridge, before i start buying Boeings.
- No! No! our new jets are most reliable! no competitor is so reliable as Boeing! Read out booklet! read the testimonies from our customers!
- But you say our pilots must spend ten times time and ten times money to proitext from X and A and K fatal problems in your Boeing jets...
- NO !!! we do not have those problems! It is government, they always go overcautious and extort!
- So you say there is no X, A and K problems in Boeing? Yes or no???
- A.. a... AH! No, there is absolutely no problems in Boeing jets.
- Good, then if there is no problem, there is nothing to overtrain our pilots at overexpensive courses.
- But government...
- You have problems with gov't - you solve them! You better know what you must arrange with clerks, to fix it. And sto imposing your problems with gov't over us customers. Do you want to sell or not?
- But safety...
- You said there is NO PROBLEMS in Boeing, didn't you???
- Yes, but...
- No buts! Give me an official p[aper that there is no X, A and K problems in Boeing ever, and that if some jet crash and burn i am not responsible, and then we pay for those jets. Or we gonna pay those, who will give us those papers!Outstandingly well written B; a most impressive explanation of 737 issues.Arioch , May 26, 2019 10:33:04 AM | 9
Two points I would like to add.
1. From my understanding of the design approach of the MAX, Boeing engineers where told to forget physics and focus on FAA compliance with an eye on quick certification and insure no additional pilot training. Example: This is why only one sensor was used. Had Boeing done the right thing, two would have been used, but then the FAA would have needed a lot more time to test. In addition, even now, Dennis A. Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing is in denial. Just listening to him makes me cringe, he needs to read this article from B and wake the F up.
2. This is terrible timing for Boeing since both the Chinese and the Russians now have aircraft to compete with the 737 MAX. It is extremely difficult to get market share in the commercial aircraft business, but the timing of this disaster will give the competition a fighting chance. In fact I suspect that Airbus competition was not the only factor that made Boeing want to move fast with the MAX aircraft.
In Silicon Valley, if you screw up a business, then you call in your crisis management consultants to fix things. Like the Intel math error in its CPU chips. It is clear to me that Boeing thought it best to save money and not call these crisis experts and it does show. In this case you get what you pay for.> The aluminum or carbon skin decision is relevant for weight..... The higher price will easily pay off.Michael , May 26, 2019 10:39:06 AM | 0
Posted by: b | May 26, 2019 10:06:12 AM | 45
> Carbon .... special care must be taken for flash impacts and other issues.
So, safety, right?
But, can one trust FAA and Boeing with safety now?
Also, remember recent crash of Sukhoi SSJ in Moscow.
Turn out, when going away from "just works" metallic bodies with inherent Faradey cage properties, properly assessing all possible "what if" scenarios with full respect to possible magnitudes and safety margins, is VERY hard, especially when marketoids demand cutting costs at all costs are reathing over your shoulder.
There was an interesting presentation how nuclear fuel rods geometry is calculated, to tolerate inevitable fuel curving under load. There were safety margings within safety margins, within... Multi-level reservations. And of course there is an incentive to increase efficiency by cutting off some margin, assigned to your unit, because there are several times a margin in other layers.
....and then one day it becomes the anekdot about rakia barrel in a village.While not a fan of the new Boeing management culture, I would just like to point out that one possible reason you haven't seen any 737NG crashes due to a runaway trim stabilizer is that fact that there is a legal 250 knot speed limit on aircraft below 10,000 feet. Additionally, the older aircraft design was more stable at lower speeds. Therefore if a runaway trim stabilizer did occur, you would theoretically have not reached a high enough speed to freeze-up the the manual trim mechanisms.Arioch , May 26, 2019 10:39:37 AM | 1
In the case of the Ethiopian 737 MAX crash, the speed of aircraft was in excess of 400 knots, where manual trimming was made impossible. In that case the insidiousness and persistence of MCAS would have led to much higher speeds than would be manageable.> This is terrible timing for Boeing since both the Chinese and the Russians now have aircraft to compete with the 737 MAXfastfreddy , May 26, 2019 10:49:08 AM | 2
Posted by: Meshpal | May 26, 2019 10:24:13 AM | 48
this WAS a terrible timing
China... it seems to have prev-gen much less efficient jet. And one only used with China, so maybe it is equally or yet worse unreliable - there is no 3rd party experience.
Russia... MS-21 is not ready yet. Close reportedly, but just not yet.
SSJ-100 then - talk about timings - just few weeks ago crashed in Moscow after a single lighting strike, with more than a half onboard dead.
So, no, right this vry moment there is no competition from Russia and China.
There were Brasil and Canada - but they were recently bough off by Boeing and Airbus.
There was Ukraine too, but EuroMaidan came and destroyed Antonov corporation as soon as they could.
So, as of this very moment it still is Boeing 737 vs Airbus 320neo duopolyExcellent work by b. Arioch at 47, That looks like an accurate scenario.Bart Hansen , May 26, 2019 10:49:43 AM | 3
Now would be a good time for the R political party and those among the D Party to repudiate government regulation (as it adversely affects business!) as it relates specifically to the FAA and its "chilling effect" on Boeing. Let business flourish. Let "the market" decide, they say.
The MSM will avoid exposing Boeing issues.I'm thinking that at some point the stabilizer on earlier aircraft was not movable with a pivot point. The elevator alone was enough to move the tail up or down.William Gruff , May 26, 2019 11:06:36 AM | 4
If so, what made the aircraft manufacturers feel the need for a pivot to move the entire stabilizer?Meshpal @48Edward , May 26, 2019 11:13:34 AM | 5
Russia's MC-21 and China's C919 are both due to begin revenue flights in 2021. Both of these are significantly more affordable than Boeing's 737 MAX family. If the 737 MAX remains grounded for a significant period, or if it requires new type certification then Boeing could be in big trouble. Doubtless the FAA knows this and are thus (again) rushing through the process of trying to get it in the air.
Hey, it is the FAA's patriotic duty , isn't it?Arioch,morongobill , May 26, 2019 11:18:18 AM | 6
I wasn't proposing modifying the handle, I was suggesting replacing it with something different, in this case a handle which extends radially and operates like a ratchet.
"how would electro-motors act, if the wheel is locked by the said ratchet?"
The system is designed with a clutch which allows the pilot to manually override the motor.Joe Frasier used to say, "kill the body and the head dies."William Gruff , May 26, 2019 11:21:48 AM | 7
How many more Frasier like body punches,as in b's news today, can the giant Boeing absorb before it hits the canvas.Bart Hansen @53 asked: "...what made the aircraft manufacturers feel the need for a pivot to move the entire stabilizer?"Arioch , May 26, 2019 12:08:21 PM | 8
The aerodynamics of an aircraft change with speed and also with balance... think ten minutes after the coffee is served and a line forms at the restroom. If the balance was always the same (no changes from burning fuel, for instance) and the plane always only flew at one speed (reaches cruising speed before leaving the runway) then it would be easier to design the aircraft to naturally assume neutral level flight without using trim systems. This isn't very realistic, though. As well, while the elevators can do all of the work of raising and lowering the nose of the aircraft, leaving all of the work to the elevators means the pilot will have to be muscling the nose of the plane up or down 100% of the time, which would probably get a little tiring, to say the least.> The system is designed with a clutch which allows the pilot to manually override the motor.Bart Hansen , May 26, 2019 12:34:04 PM | 9
Posted by: Edward | 55
Not a clutch, but a switch. A switch that removes ("cuts off") electric power from motor.
The wheel and the motor and the stabiliser are connected by fixed drive train, no clutches.
It is the electric wire - outside of the train - that is connected or disconnected.
if electric power is there - then it is motor, that rotates the said wheel.
if electric power is off - then human can rotate both the wheel and the motor.
A ratchet physically blocks wheel rotation, in one direction, another, or both.
That, a properly functioning ratcher.
If a ratcher is malfunctioning - and device can break - it may become unpredictable.
Boeing clearly tried to keep this wheel-motor-stabilizer drive train "thick as a brick" and reliable as wooden club. Because it is critical safety system.
Introducing a complex, optionally-engaging machinery, retroactivey, into "overcrowded" (no other place for FMC was found) cabin that was designed to have nothing like that - may in total be more dangerous than now.Thanks, William.b , May 26, 2019 12:47:30 PM | 0
Is a severe mistrim of the aircraft due to pilot error or the STS?
Is the difficulty described by b in correcting a mistrim caused by the greatly differing surface areas of the elevator & stabilizer?@Arioch @58
Edward at 55 is right. It is you Arioch, who does not know how the 737 trim system works.
There is an automatic clutch between the electrical drive of the jackscrew and the manual drive. In effect the manual over rides the electrical.