The Boeing MAX 8 Accidents

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Dakota 400

Conductor
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,790
So far we have a lethal software defect, insufficient training, a wiring harness flaw, and now a grounding failure?
My "angry" reaction was directed at Boeing.

Time to stop production of this model. All planes of this model being scrapped, with the metal turned into material and used to make a new plane that will be carefully, thoroughly well designed and tested.

I was somewhat pleased to see that there are a number of new members on the Boeing's Board when I read their shareholder report and proxy statement. However, there are still too many of the members of the Board who are holdovers from the previous Boards. I voted to support the "new blood"; I voted against those Board members who need to take their stock options and "get the heck out of Chicago".
 

Dakota 400

Conductor
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,790
It's getting really hard to continue to support Boeing these days
As a shareholder of the company, the thing that most irritates me is that the problems seem to be in the division of the company that produces the passenger planes. The other business segments seem not to have the problems that that segment has had.

Boeing has become too large of a Company for it to be properly managed? Time for the spin-off of the passenger plane segment of the Company so that those in charge of the management of that segment can have more direct oversight of that one segment as compared to what is currently required?
 

John Santos

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 24, 2018
Messages
157
Boeing has had problems with getting their passenger spacecraft certified too of late.
Not to mention the SLS, which if it actually launches this year will be 5 years late and billion over budget.
 

HenryK

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
250
To be fair to Boeing, the recall involves about 60 out of the 800-some 737 Maxes already built, and the flaw is in a backup system. The flaw was discovered in normal inspections, not via accident . . . the system is working as it should. It is an area of concern but the sky is not falling.
 

Trogdor

Conductor
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
5,665
Location
Here
If one were to look at the FAA database, one would note over 100 Airworthiness Directives in just the past 60 days, and 25 or so for this month alone.

A good number of them apply to Airbus planes. But because it’s the 737MAX, it makes the news.
 

caravanman

Conductor
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
4,126
Location
Nottingham, England.
To be fair to Boeing, the recall involves about 60 out of the 800-some 737 Maxes already built, and the flaw is in a backup system. The flaw was discovered in normal inspections, not via accident . . . the system is working as it should. It is an area of concern but the sky is not falling.
Do we know which planes out of the 800 odd require grounding? What is the difference between those that do and those that don't? Something changed at some point, so that change ought to have been discovered / investigated/ prevented. The sky may not be falling, but as an airline user, this sort of large scale deviation from the norm in an aircraft back up system , not just in one plane, is not something to just gloss over?
 

adamj023

Service Attendant
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
213
The max problem of grounding sounds like an easy inspection and repair process if necessary for the latest issue. I bet turnaround time could be a few hours per plane tops and is only a fraction of the 737 Max out there so should be back in service quickly. There are always small scale issues that occur which are normally resolved in the regular maintenance intervals.
 

Ziv

OBS Chief
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
783
Boeing's military aircraft production hasn't done that much better than its civilian aircraft production. Look at the KC-46A Pegasus. 10 years after the contract was awarded we are still a couple years from full operational capability. There have been a litany of widely varying problems but they all come down to poor corporate leadership.
One other thing about the article I link to, notice how seldom Boeing is named? What is up with that?
 

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
3,011
Location
Baltimore. MD
Boeing's military aircraft production hasn't done that much better than its civilian aircraft production. Look at the KC-46A Pegasus. 10 years after the contract was awarded we are still a couple years from full operational capability. There have been a litany of widely varying problems but they all come down to poor corporate leadership.
One other thing about the article I link to, notice how seldom Boeing is named? What is up with that?
From I read, the problem with this new tanker is with a remote sensing device on the refilling boom. This seems to be installed so that the boom operator can now sit up front in the cockpit rather than in the back of the plane where he or she can directly see the boom in real time. If that was a capability insisted on by the Air Force, perhaps Boeing isn't the only one at blame, here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziv

Ziv

OBS Chief
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
783
MARC Rider, the boom issue was one of 4 Category 1 problems the Pegasus has had. The others were the inability for the aircraft to refuel A-10's, the boom randomly scraping refueling aircraft and the fuel leaks that have been detected on half the KC-46's delivered so far.
The most embarrassing one, though not a Cat 1 issue, is the fact that several of the KC-46's have been delivered with trash, rags, tools and debris left inside the fuselage lining, out of sight but possibly in a place that could sever wiring or contribute to fires. One aircraft was actually delivered with a ladder and a string of lights behind a bulkhead.
From I read, the problem with this new tanker is with a remote sensing device on the refilling boom. This seems to be installed so that the boom operator can now sit up front in the cockpit rather than in the back of the plane where he or she can directly see the boom in real time. If that was a capability insisted on by the Air Force, perhaps Boeing isn't the only one at blame, here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jis

Bob Dylan

Conductor
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
22,509
Location
Austin Texas
MARC Rider, the boom issue was one of 4 Category 1 problems the Pegasus has had. The others were the inability for the aircraft to refuel A-10's, the boom randomly scraping refueling aircraft and the fuel leaks that have been detected on half the KC-46's delivered so far.
The most embarrassing one, though not a Cat 1 issue, is the fact that several of the KC-46's have been delivered with trash, rags, tools and debris left inside the fuselage lining, out of sight but possibly in a place that could sever wiring or contribute to fires. One aircraft was actually delivered with a ladder and a string of lights behind a bulkhead.
Sounds like what comes out of the Chicago Amtrak Yards! Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziv

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
12,353
Location
Texas
Time to stop production of this model. All planes of this model being scrapped, with the metal turned into material and used to make a new plane that will be carefully, thoroughly well designed and tested.
The aircraft itself can probably be made safe with enough corrections, but the system that created it remains largely intact, so even if they started over they could potentially fall into the same trap again.

To be fair to Boeing, the recall involves about 60 out of the 800-some 737 Maxes already built, and the flaw is in a backup system. The flaw was discovered in normal inspections, not via accident . . . the system is working as it should. It is an area of concern but the sky is not falling.
By this logic a car that stalls on Monday but runs on Tuesday is "working as it should" despite lacking dependability.

If one were to look at the FAA database, one would note over 100 Airworthiness Directives in just the past 60 days, and 25 or so for this month alone. A good number of them apply to Airbus planes. But because it’s the 737MAX, it makes the news.
How many of those directives resulted in dozens of grounded aircraft?
 

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
12,353
Location
Texas
This video states that most of the penalties went to airlines rather than families of dead passengers and nearly all corrective effort was focused on fixing the MAX rather than resolving Boeing and the FAA's conflict of interest.

 
Last edited:

anumberone

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2015
Messages
2,631
Location
Los Angeles
The max problem of grounding sounds like an easy inspection and repair process if necessary for the latest issue. I bet turnaround time could be a few hours per plane tops and is only a fraction of the 737 Max out there so should be back in service quickly. There are always small scale issues that occur which are normally resolved in the regular maintenance intervals.
Were not talking about the same 737 max that became un flyable with Boeing not able to give a reasonable answer for are we, or is this is a new issue on top of all the old problems. Small scale. Really!
 
Last edited:

Devil's Advocate

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
12,353
Location
Texas
Were not talking about the same 737 max that became un flyable with Boeing not able to give a reasonable answer for are we, or is this is a new issue on top of all the old problems. Small scale. Really!
I guess grounding 100+ aircraft and suspending new deliveries is a minor event to some folks. Happens all the time don't ya know. He also estimated a few hours of effort "tops" but the actual estimate is a few days per aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Top