FAA Investigating Whether Boeing 737 Max 9 Conformed To Approved Design (nytimes.com) 84
The Federal Aviation Administration on Thursday said it had opened an investigation into whether Boeing failed to ensure that its 737 Max 9 plane was safe and manufactured to match the design approved by the agency. The New York Times (non-paywalled source): The F.A.A. said the investigation stemmed from the loss of a fuselage panel of a Boeing 737 Max 9 operated by Alaska Airlines shortly after it took off on Friday from Portland, Ore., leaving a hole in the side of the passenger cabin. The plane returned to Portland for an emergency landing. "This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again," the agency said.
In a letter to Boeing dated Jan. 10, the F.A.A. said that after the Portland incident, it was notified of additional issues with other Boeing 737 Max 9 planes. The letter does not detail what other issues were reported to the agency. Alaska and United Airlines, which operate most of the Max 9s in use in the United States, said on Monday that they discovered loose hardware on the panel when conducting preliminary inspections on their planes. The new investigation is the latest setback for Boeing, which is one of just two suppliers of large planes for most airlines. The company has struggled to regain the public's trust after two crashes, in Indonesia in 2018 and Ethiopia in 2019, involving the 737 Max 8 killed a total of 346 people.
In a letter to Boeing dated Jan. 10, the F.A.A. said that after the Portland incident, it was notified of additional issues with other Boeing 737 Max 9 planes. The letter does not detail what other issues were reported to the agency. Alaska and United Airlines, which operate most of the Max 9s in use in the United States, said on Monday that they discovered loose hardware on the panel when conducting preliminary inspections on their planes. The new investigation is the latest setback for Boeing, which is one of just two suppliers of large planes for most airlines. The company has struggled to regain the public's trust after two crashes, in Indonesia in 2018 and Ethiopia in 2019, involving the 737 Max 8 killed a total of 346 people.
Certification (Score:5, Interesting)
It certainly puts into a different perspective Boeingâ(TM)s request to avoid certifying one of their other models!
Re:Certification (Score:5, Insightful)
There's not only the immediate issue of how this happened, but that it happened after the issues from a couple years ago. How does one potty train Boeing without starving it or keeping a regulatory foot shoved in its ass?
The potty training metaphor is an apt one. Except, this isn't like potty training a baby/toddler that's never grasped the concept before. This is like a full-grown adult becoming so drunk on their own stupidity that they can't remember where the bathroom is. And in that case? Shove the regulatory foot DEEP in its ass and keep stomping until they comply.
More and more it seems like the regulatory bodies in America serve only the business sectors they are supposed to be regulating for the public good. The public good has been transferred into wealth aggregation. Anything that increases wealth among those that already have plenty is deemed a public good by most regulatory bodies. Concerns among the population are of no concern at all to the regulators.
Re:Certification (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems adequate after they committed at the very least criminally negligent homicide on mass scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Put the Execs and Board in prison. That'll train them. Put some engineers back in charge.
I think there's a justifiable anger building up to the point where this will have to be the end result. If our regulators cracked down on businesses when they acted inappropriately, rather than rewarding them when they fail financially with bailouts and protecting all the C-suites no matter what the hell happens, it's created a situation where the average, non-executive is rightly pissed off to no end at what we witness, time and again, that never gets more than a "appear before congress to get a lecture, t
Re: (Score:2)
Put the Execs and Board in prison
According to Citizens United, corporations are people, and hence should be subject to incarceration or execution.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Trump Crime Family cutting the budgets, and actively pro-business, had nothing to do with it. Right.
Re: (Score:1)
You can thank MAGA folks for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You can thank MAGA folks for that.
As much as I enjoy the dog-pile currently happening against the MAGA folks, they're hardly the root source of this issue. They just continued the trend that's been happening here for over forty years.
Re: Certification (Score:2)
Animals not able to be potty trained are put in a pen or put down. Not sure which alternative that's most humane.
Re: (Score:1)
One does have to eventually ask oneself if not having a competitor to Airbus would actually be worse. . .
Re:Certification (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Certification (Score:2)
The FAA could just revoke the certification of the 737-MAX permanently and demand the airframes to be scrapped at the expense of Boeing,
It would hurt the wallets of the shareholders enough for them to actually change the management.
don't let the manufacturers self cenrifce (Score:5, Insightful)
don't let the manufacturers have self certification.
As that just makes the TOP only care about the bonus they get from cutting costs.
Re: (Score:3)
On the surface it looks like they're there to make aircraft but that's just a by-product of the real purpose, which is to funnel vast amounts of taxpayers money into the pockets of the right people.
Re: (Score:1)
That being said.. decertify the MAX planes? Scrap them? Why? Because of 2 deadly crashes and 1 scary incident? Dude, those planes have probably flown for upwards of 10 million hours. Ok, zero problems is the goal to shoot for, but there’s no denying that the MAX jets are probably s
Re: (Score:2)
There was not one crazy incident, there where dozens (plural).
The two crashs nearly happened 100 times. In most cases it was pure luck that the pilots figured what to do to prevent the crash.
Re: Certification (Score:2)
Very good point! The total incident rate matters (and now this) and not just fatal crashes.
Vote with your dollars (Score:2)
I'm never boarding a Max plane again, and I'll probably avoid the Dreamliner too. Don't care if a different flight costs more, my life is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say we aren't nationalizing Boeing enough. Airbus is 25% state owned, I don't think Boeing is any % owned by the USG and I would say we should change that, it's clearly working out for Airbus in that market. I think with such large, important companies the government should be able to exert a tempering influence on it. Boeing is too important a company to be reckless in the pursuit of higher margins.
If you are a company that is in fact too big to fail then as part of your culture you have a responsibility not just to your shareholders but the citizenry as a whole, in this case worldwide. Write it into their charter. You did it, you built a company that can never go bankrupt, that means profits is sorta secondary in a lot of places.
well maybe the CEO or VP's should do hard time for (Score:3)
well maybe the CEO or VP's should do hard time for the 346 people that died.
Re: (Score:2)
Got no argument from me. If we don't have laws that can do it we should make some.
Re: (Score:1)
Adding government ownership to a very large corporation cannot possibly not make it worse.
If you live in the US, you have to know that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say we aren't nationalizing Boeing enough. Airbus is 25% state owned, I don't think Boeing is any % owned by the USG and I would say we should change that, it's clearly working out for Airbus in that market. I think with such large, important companies the government should be able to exert a tempering influence on it. Boeing is too important a company to be reckless in the pursuit of higher margins.
If you are a company that is in fact too big to fail then as part of your culture you have a responsibility not just to your shareholders but the citizenry as a whole, in this case worldwide. Write it into their charter. You did it, you built a company that can never go bankrupt, that means profits is sorta secondary in a lot of places.
A couple of things, which states own a stake in Airbus? Under what conditions. I suspect most will be under sovereign wealth funds (the government is a normal shareholder, not an "owner" per se and cannot directly influence the board). Also Europe is quite different to the US where partial ownership actually puts you at a disadvantage when bidding, especially in government contracts where governments need to avoid favouritism where a conflict of interest is involved.
That being said, a partial nationalisa
Re: (Score:2)
The government's of France and Germany each own around 11% and the government of Spain owns around 4%. This is through holding companies and they do in fact have voting rights.
Any conflict of interest problems can be legislated away with whatever legislation would be needed to make such a thing happen with Boeing. I think there mere fact that a company like Airbus knows 25% of it's shareholders desire stability and safety has an influence over their operations. Plus I imagine those shareholders have a de
Re: (Score:2)
Any conflict of interest problems can be legislated away with whatever legislation would be needed to make such a thing happen with Boeing..
Ahh, you're assuming every government is as corrupt as the US.
Attempts to introduce such legislation would certainly meet serious problems, first at the nations own assemblies, then the nations courts and then the European courts. The system actually works quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the market can sustain not TWO but FOUR semi-nationalized competitors, with COMAC (C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) and Sukhoi (SuperJet 100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ).
Re: (Score:2)
In case you fly in Europe, it's one more reason to avoid RyanAir; after the 2018-2019 crashes of the 737MAX and customer trying to avoid it as a matter of precaution, RyanAir decided to address the problem by not publicize the composition of their fleet or the aircraft used in the connection you board (maybe you can guess with the seating configuration when you select the seats but most people won't be able to guess).
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you demand 100% reliability, you just need to stay home and hide. But you can’t even shop for groceries. Drive? Yyyeeaahhhhh that trip to the grocery store is at least 100,000 times more likely to kill you than flying the worst Boeing jet on the planet.
So is staying at home, with 40 deaths per 100,000 people per year.
Re: (Score:1)
100% reliability is, of course, impossible. I'll never demand that. However, I will demand they do anything and everything they could possibly do to attempt 100% reliability, instead of what seems to be the absolute bare minimum.
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:5, Informative)
Probably best not to compare to the A320 family, since it's stunningly reliable, just like the 737NG or 747-400. The MAX looks pretty bad statistically, but it's a new plane and still has a very small sample size.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/... [airsafe.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The MAX is *not* a new plane. It is revamped, decades-old designt and in that light should actually be *more* reliable than its predecessors. But greed and bad engineering ruined it.
Yep, the 737 at it's heart is an airliner designed back in the 60's that has undergone 4 major revisions. The original series (-100/200) had low bypass turbofans in nacelles built into the wings, the 737 classic (-300/400/500) used high bypass turbofans and moved the nacelles below the wing, the Next Generation (-600/700/800/900) had even larger, more efficient engines however due to the airframe being so low to the ground, the engine accessories had to be moved around just to give it enough ground clearanc
Re: (Score:1)
Worse - when they introduced the new stuff, some of the important bits had ZERO redundancy: https://www.seattletimes.com/b... [seattletimes.com]
So it is effectively a new plane and a shitty one.
Boeing just tells everyone it's like the old planes (737) because otherwise it's harder to sell - pilots need retraining etc etc.
However when shit happened, Boeing implies it's the pilots fault - the pilots were inadequately trained, etc because otherwise the pilots would have noticed somewhere in the documentation that the new plane w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can use all the asterisks you want, but it's just semantics. The MAX is a new plane; none existed prior to 2016. New designs, updates, types, whatever, all typically have more problems when they're new than when they're old. That's basic engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing: The MAX is not a new plane! No type training required!
- MAX crashes -
Boeing (shills): The MAX is a new plane! Things going wrong should expected!
Re: (Score:2)
The key is in the name you used. *Type* training. Note my asterisks.
The MAX is not a new type. "Type" is a regulatory term indicating a new plane that's so different you need a specific level of training to be qualified to fly it. Pilots of other 737s do need to be trained to fly the MAX, but Boeing avoided the threshold that would have it classified as a new type.
Re: (Score:3)
but it's a new plane
The whole cause of many of the MAX's problems is that it is *not* a new plane.
Re: (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Demanding that Boeing confirm to the actual aircraft design, to approved aircraft manufacturing standards, and approved quality controls is not demanding Total Quality.
Rather, it is demand Boeing achieve FAA-mandated quality.
We know from the fallout from the two crashes from their earlier MAX grounding that workers were vocally complaining that quality control was slipshod, that parts were substandard, and that this was by design.
We now appear to have confirmation of these allegations. This is not about Tot
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to say Airbus is worse, but it’s hard to argue they’re much better.
Actually it's very easy to argue they are much better. In the past 2 decades Boeing planes have been majorly grounded for technical reasons. Airbus's haven't (they have had a few minor local groundings, but none to do with the technical defects for planes).
But listing out list of accidents is easy, if and only if you're willing to come to the wrong conclusion. Actually go an analyse the incidents, look at them in detail. You'll find the majority of A320 incidents listed range from pilot error to maintenance error, none of which has to do with Airbus. There's a reason most of the incidents involve 3rd world airline operators. There's also a reason why there's a big discrepancy between safety of 3rd world and first world airlines regardless of which planes they bought. A few that are not these have none the less resulted in no fatalities.
Boeing is the only one who has a decent amount of blood on their hands in the past 20 years.
No Good Planes (Score:3, Interesting)
Boeing hasn't made or designed anything decent in the last two decades and currently has a board of directors that has absolutely no engineering experience. Being on a board of directors must be the easiest job in the world - do absolutely no work and collect money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the 787 project will be 20 years old this year, so they actually did create one decent airliner type in the last two decades. Even though its development and manufacturing has been a shit show and continues to be a shitshow to this day, it is quite good (even though I personally prefer whatever Airbus is making).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the 787 project will be 20 years old this year, so they actually did create one decent airliner type in the last two decades. Even though its development and manufacturing has been a shit show and continues to be a shitshow to this day, it is quite good (even though I personally prefer whatever Airbus is making).
The 787 is the perfect example of what he's talking about... It's a terrible airliner designed to squeeze in as many people as possible with no thought of passenger comfort. It's the only way Boeing can get a competitive edge over Airbus, more profit per seat mile because they shove in more seats per sq in. I'm at the point where I'll pay extra not to fly on a 787 Squeezeliner.
Forget about the cabin pressure thing... large airliners like the A380, B747-400 have been doing that for ages, the A350 can main
Re: (Score:2)
Your anger should be redirected at the airlines. They are the ones that squeeze too many seats in. And the new A350s will all be 10 abreast, hence the redesign of the interior to fit it in better. Even so either the seats or the aisles will be narrower that these of 777.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is both of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. The whole interior of an airplane is built to order so the cabin is whatever the airline choses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the interior isn't the sole issue, nor is Boeing required to allow such customizations. So, the problem is still both.
Re: (Score:2)
The 787 sucks giant donkey dick as per mjwx's comment.
I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
FAA needs to step in (Score:5, Interesting)
The sort of issues we're seeing from Boeing lately are absolutely unacceptable. They should've never happened. They should never be allowed to self-certify, because..... that's the dumbest thing ever. Nothing good has ever happened from companies being able to police themselves. The PHBs and beancounters take over and force bad things that would've never been allowed otherwise, all in the name of profit. When it comes to air travel, safety absolutely must be priority-one, which will never happen when the PHBs and beancounters are calling the shots.
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA were told about a very high error rate in quality control from the last disaster. I want to know why the FAA didn't sort this out at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ground them all and force them to go through FAA certification, then make any design corrections (at Boeing's cost) to every existing MAX before it's deemed airworthy again. Something that is really going to hurt them, but not quite bankrupt them.
This is exactly the problem, which the feds face: you can't beat a quasi-monopolistic company, which builds items deemed essential for national security, into submission with monetary fines. If they become unprofitable, they'll threaten default and fed money will flow. The only measure, which will fix their attitude, are long term prison sentences for the responsible executives. Their corrupt and reckless business decisions willingly risk and cost more live than those of the casual Fentanyl peddler, so why
Re: (Score:2)
FAA needs to pull something really drastic on Boeing for this fustercluck that they call the MAX fleet of planes. Ground them all and force them to go through FAA certification, then make any design corrections (at Boeing's cost) to every existing MAX before it's deemed airworthy again.
Apparently you didn't read or comprehend the headline, and neither did the mods. The FAA is concerned with the manufacturing of these planes. That's what "conformed to approved design" means. This door failure appears to be completely unrelated to the design changes made to accommodate the LEAP engine on the MAX.
Design quality means jack shit if you cant manufacture to the design requirements.
Time to scrap Boeing. (Score:2)
Type accreditation (Score:3)
No the 737 Max 9 only exists because nobody wants to accredit a new type aircraft. ... literally the ONLY thing common through the 737 airframe family are the way the power and hydraulic lines are run throughout the aircraft....and that is in ways that is NOT legal for newer designs.
The original 737-100 rolled out in 1967.
It is now 2024, and the 737 airframe family has magically increased by length and passenger capacity by something around 70%. The engines are so much larger on the new aircraft that they had to sling them differently under the wing. Avionics, wing/engine positioning and geometry, landing gear, control surfaces
One does not place primary and secondary anything immediately next to eachother in other aircraft. 737 does.
Re: (Score:3)
No the 737 Max 9 only exists because nobody wants to accredit a new type aircraft.
Boeing doesn't want to lose loyal 737 customers. The airlines and Boeing can sell the FAA on "little or no new crew training needed" to advance to the next derivative version. If the customers need to retrain their pilots (and maintenance and other support staff), then that opens up the market for Airbus. And perhaps some other manufacturers.
The rules and regulations behind this are bizarre. I was there when they built the 747-400. Going from a three to two crew cockpit. Completely different UI going from
Re: (Score:2)
One thing Boeing kept tenaciously is their incredibly shitty flight control computer, which is a 1979 era Motorola 68000 with 30Mhz clock and 4MB RAM. Roughly as powerful as a child's plushy toy.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it work? Have there been many failures of that system due to its design or lack of processing power? If not, then what's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, that museum piece has insufficient processing power to handle the plane in accordance with modern safety standards.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuselage is also the same, just with some plugs to lenghten it. It would also be illegal for newer designs since it cannot withstand heavy impacts.
How to save Boeing (Score:3)
Here's my wild idea. Bring back Alan Mulally as CEO and Chairman of the Board
1) Restructure the board with more engineers and fewer bean counters
2) Move HQ back to the Seattle area (makes his commute from Mercer Island easier)
3) Reconstitute core engineering onshore to rebuild institutional knowledge
4) Rebuild quality and safety teams and give them the power to stop production if necessary
5) Recapture Spirit Aerospace and bring it back into Boeing company control
6) Recenter production of new models at Everett
7) Fire every MCD vestigial executive
8) Fire every bean counter and marketing schmuck that contributed to this mess
9) Find a successor (he's 78) to take over within 3 years
737 Max (Score:1)
Was meritocracy rejected in favor of DEI? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing is the one that does the final install of the door plugs in question, not Spirit (Boeing uses the openings where the plugs go to install seats and things before then installing the plugs)
So any failure on the Alaskan plane or any other plane (missing or loose bolts etc) is entirely on Boeing and has nothing to do with Spirit.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing uses the openings where the plugs go to install seats
There is some discussion about this. First, I doubt they can get much through that small a door opening. But they might use it for interior ventilation ducts and power cables during assembly. Or it has been suggested that at one time they did. And asked Spirit to ship the fuselage with the doors loosely fitted. But then changed their assembly process and eliminated the need to open the plug door. But then they forgot that they still had to complete the assembly (having not informed Spirit of the process cha
Re: (Score:2)
So still confirming a 100% Boeing fuckup.
In that Boeing is responsible for the contract terms between itself and its suppliers, yes. It's also a good lesson in outsourcing. What would have been an internal communication about a change in manufacturing plans, handled with a simple memo, becomes a change order between independent organizations. With all the legal and marketing bullshit baked in.
He's the fix - SFW (Score:3)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/... [disquscdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I had a freak accident, and have four broken ribbs.
You pained me very much!
Formality only (Score:2)
Obviously, Boeing has a few bolts loose and does not care. Otherwise something like that could not have happened after their recent history. Time to shut them down completely and have them re-certify everything.
Loss of a fuselage panel (Score:2)
Two critical bolts (Score:3)
Two critical bolts at the bottom of the removable panel, I won't call it a door. They're supposed to be torqued with castellated nuts and pinned. Considering the size of the panel I would think there would be a few more fasteners all with at least Nord Lock [youtube.com] washers to secure them further. Yeah, this is a cheap design because if those two bolts let go, by loosening then the panel springs pop it up and past the 6 interlocking tabs in the fuselage, and off it goes.
Re: (Score:3)
In the vast expanse where eagles roam,
A tale unfolds, a traveler's dome.
A Boeing 737, wings unfurled,
Yet a door plug vanished, from the world.
For want of pins, a crucial two,
Sixteen thousand feet, a perilous view.
No harm befell those in the air,
Yet repercussions ripple, a widespread affair.
In the symphony of flight, a note askew,
Two pins absent, a detail true.
The door swung open in the open sky,
A consequence felt as planes comply.
For want of a nail, a horse was lost,
So, too, the lesson in pins, the cost.
Pla