GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 19 19, 2:56 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: July 10 19, 9:40 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21510
Location: Chicago
Wow. I would be freaking the hell out if I saw that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 14 19, 12:45 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24280
Location: St. Louis
AA cancels Boeing 737 Max flights to november 2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 14 19, 9:00 pm 
Offline
All Hail the New GDT Master
User avatar

Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
Posts: 21941
Location: Columbus, OH
Freed Roger wrote:


Why not just go with the inevitable destruction of this model of aircraft. No one is going to want to fly in one again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 14 19, 9:25 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24280
Location: St. Louis
Business Insider: Will Boeing Recover from 737 Max?
Gosh, I hope Boeing comes out of this, and does well(in a productive, largely apolitical, safe manner).

Edit: link is not the most informative conversation, but I post it anyway because I heard such concerns anecdotally (from a friend)

They have parking lots full of these grounded planes.

My hope aside, seems like they sort of have a monopoly and too big to fail thing going.


Last edited by Freed Roger on July 14 19, 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 14 19, 9:44 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24280
Location: St. Louis
CardsofSTL wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:


Why not just go with the inevitable destruction of this model of aircraft. No one is going to want to fly in one again.


Or just rebrand it as the genius POTUS suggested.
Good F Grief, as if Boeing takes business advice from the former helm of Trump University
....737 Max was Boeings new commercial airliner, with record sales, 5000 in 2 yrs, going to zero.

Hard to guess what happens. A lot tied up here. I wonder if the plane is too big to fail component of a too big to fail Corp (one that is govt subsidized).

AW, my apologies for all the discretion and generalities. I am interested in your thoughts on Boeings path back to normal business.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 15 19, 7:53 am 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
I think Boeing has generally bundled this entire thing.

First off, I still don't get the feeling they fully understand the dire situation they've created. They've said some things like...well, this is partially our fault. Sorry. We'll fix it.

But, the implication was they want to fix it quickly and cheaply and go about their merry way.

Meanwhile, they're working on fixes and the FAA is finding issues that should have been found the first time around. The chief officer in charge of the Max has retired which probably is an indication of how bad of shape they are in. And, when they get the the FAA re-certification, is it going to be enough for all the other international agencies this go around? China in particular seems to have an interest to delay allowing the Max the ability to fly as they are working on their own airplane to rival the Max/Boeing, in general.

And, that's just the internal/government side of it.

There's also the near constant stream of bad news (most of it is probably overblown and mis-stated in the news) on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. But, that's what the public sees. Oh, this airline cancelled all orders, Ryanair renames the plane, FAA found this issue, Max won't be back in 2019, pilots voice concerns over the 787 Dreamliner now, etc etc etc.

Boeing should set a date of, say, April of 2021 and bust their ass to beat that timetable. Control the narrative instead of saying it'll be done as quickly as possible. And, they need to find a way to install confidence back in the flying public.

The world needs Boeing's planes. Airbus can't manufacture enough to keep up with global demand. So, they have that going for them. At the same time, there's a lot of money they can lose if they fall well behind Airbus and the world orders only the bare minimum to allow Airbus to stay 100% saturated with orders...

I know this is poorly formatted and not all that coherrent, but those are my general thoughts. Boeings not going away any time soon, but this could be the beginning of a downfall that lasts for decades if they don't get their [expletive] together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 15 19, 10:24 am 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24280
Location: St. Louis
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
I think Boeing has generally bundled this entire thing.

First off, I still don't get the feeling they fully understand the dire situation they've created. They've said some things like...well, this is partially our fault. Sorry. We'll fix it.

But, the implication was they want to fix it quickly and cheaply and go about their merry way.

Meanwhile, they're working on fixes and the FAA is finding issues that should have been found the first time around. The chief officer in charge of the Max has retired which probably is an indication of how bad of shape they are in. And, when they get the the FAA re-certification, is it going to be enough for all the other international agencies this go around? China in particular seems to have an interest to delay allowing the Max the ability to fly as they are working on their own airplane to rival the Max/Boeing, in general.

And, that's just the internal/government side of it.

There's also the near constant stream of bad news (most of it is probably overblown and mis-stated in the news) on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. But, that's what the public sees. Oh, this airline cancelled all orders, Ryanair renames the plane, FAA found this issue, Max won't be back in 2019, pilots voice concerns over the 787 Dreamliner now, etc etc etc.

Boeing should set a date of, say, April of 2021 and bust their ass to beat that timetable. Control the narrative instead of saying it'll be done as quickly as possible. And, they need to find a way to install confidence back in the flying public.

The world needs Boeing's planes. Airbus can't manufacture enough to keep up with global demand. So, they have that going for them. At the same time, there's a lot of money they can lose if they fall well behind Airbus and the world orders only the bare minimum to allow Airbus to stay 100% saturated with orders...

I know this is poorly formatted and not all that coherrent, but those are my general thoughts. Boeings not going away any time soon, but this could be the beginning of a downfall that lasts for decades if they don't get their [expletive] together.

Thanks for the post. Very informative


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 15 19, 10:58 am 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
Can't remember when/where, but I read an article that I thought was in this thread though it apparently is not and now I can't find it. But, it basically made the case that Boeing in the 90s moved away from being an airline/engineering compnany that embraced technical challenges and worked as a unit to solve them with full support from the Brass. The article made the case that Boeing became more cut throat and allowed accounting to start influencing their decisions. Before, they'd do what was technically correct. Obviously economics are always going to be a factor, but there are ways to properly and improperly value engineer a solution. Since the shift, they've started not addressing the difficult challenges and relying on a myriad of smoke and mirrors in lieu actual solutions.

Some examples of the shift:
Fire people that raise red flags and replace them with people that will do what they're told.
***Outsourcing things like software programming (looking at you MCAS).
Pressing suppliers to cut costs (like Walmart)
Set parameters based on end results with no thought to the practicality (eg, can't change type rating)
Etc

There were some quotes from anonymous employees basically saying as much...the company has had a philosophical shift to make more money.

Regardless, it was an interesting read, seemed quite believable, and I'll do my best to find it.

***Back on this topic as it's obviously quite hot. I argued at one point, probably in this thread, that the software engineering was to blame at least in part because no software engineer competent in aviation should/would ever design a system that pushes the nose down so much/so fast and do it repeatedly. And, if the reports that the software programming was outsourced to overseas companies on the cheap, that's a massive problem for Boeing, imo. Of course, Boeing has denied this and the company that reportedly did the work has somewhat denied it. So....allegedly, Boeing hired HCL to design what turned out to be MCAS and provided specs that were met. Trusting such a thing to more/less a performance spec really is disgusting.

Here's my understanding of performance specs and how we use them. Granted, these are very different applications but I'll more or less get to the gist of why it's ridiculous.

In site design, we often use performance specs for irrigation layout. Basically, choose from these types of sprinkler heads/valves/pipe material, maintain this range of pressure in the main line, reduce to this pressure at the heads, provide this much coverage in these areas. This is faster and therefore cheaper than designing a layout for all the water mains/branches, specifying the exact pressure, the exact model #s for valves and heads, the exact flow rates at each sprinkler head, the exact rotation angles for the heads, etc. Basically leave it up to the contractor who has certain expertise and knowledge of market costs and what not to ensure that the newly laid sod/planted trees get the requisite water so they don't die. They submit their layout and all this information and we approve/reject it.

But, this is for freaking irrigation. If something goes wrong, well, maybe some sod dries out. Which is a risk the owner ultimately accepts by not paying us to do the full layout/design. And, frankly, it's cost savings at the beginning that I recommend they take. Because, the performance spec covers them from the most part and with the submittal process and then inspection, most everything that goes wrong falls back on the contractor.

Compared to, say, sanitary sewer design where setting a pipe too low could result in all the sewer flowing into a hole with no way to gravity feed to the main without being pumped, irrigation can be handled in such a manner. One where a full design isn't necessarily required.

Applied to the MCAS situation, it appears this is exactly what they did. Boeing allegedly said, well, we need a software patch. We need it to do this. We don't know how exactly to do that, so just give HCL some parameters and let them write some code. Which they did and allegedly the parameters weren't tight enough. No one really designed exactly what was needed, they just designed what Boeing told them to; and Boeing told them how to avoid a type rating change. So....wala, it was done haphazardly and in a manner where no one that knew the ins/outs of what was happening was doing the design. Again, this is probably fine for irrigation but....not so much for a [expletive] airplane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 15 19, 11:54 am 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
Not the article I was talking about, but it does go into detail about the HCL/Boeing partnership.

Quote:
It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.


https://www.chicagobusiness.com/manufac ... -engineers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 16 19, 9:14 am 
Online
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 36888
Location: Huis Clos
Everything I’ve read or listened to runs counter to “meticulous”.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 33anda3rd, Schlich and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group