What the hell is going on with Boeing?

Yurt2

Another Boeing emergency landing this time at Moscow after the incident from Colorado a few short days ago.


https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0226/1199501-boeing-777-landing/

Once a great American company and a trusted titan of global aviation - now quite literally falling apart with stuff like this and the rolling disaster that is the 737 MAX.

A criticism of modern Boeing is that it used to be a company run by engineers up to the highest level, whereas these days they have Harvard MBAs and accountant corner cutters in charge leading to disaster after disaster.

The same people also got sick of well-paid and trained aviation construction staff (often inter-generational expertise) in their home of Washington State, so they moved a lot of functions to non-union Southern States. There were stories of Boeing literally going into Burger King asking burger flippers did they want to make planes.

'If it's Boeing, I ain't going'

AlphabetCards

Yurt! wrote: »

whereas these days they have Harvard MBAs and accountant corner cutters in charge leading to disaster after disaster.

The scourge of the sciences.

riclad

Boeing dont build jet engines, engines need to be checked after a certain no of hours, all the planes with that engine are grounded and they are being checked .
theres only a few companys who make jet engines ,
rolls royce, pratt etc


https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/travel/news/2021/02/22/boeing-777-grounding-engine-failure-pratt-and-whitney-united-flight-328-who-makes-the-engines/4541359001/
one of the problems with the 737 is the flight control software is complex and pilots
where not being properly trained and did not understand how it works.

https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/political-social-justice/boeing-parts-scandal.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/production-problems-prompt-broad-faa-review-of-boeing-dreamliner-lapses-11599498118

Your Face

Operated by Rossiya Airlines brought to you by Aeroflot.

Skylinehead

Yeah I'm not getting this one. MCAS is a valid argument, but jet engines? Boeing have never made those.

RandRuns

Looking out the plane window at a burning, disintegrating engine must be a little disconcerting. I think I'd be finding something to distract myself rather than filming it.

AlphabetCards

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah I'm not getting this one. MCAS is a valid argument, but jet engines? Boeing have never made those.

They choose, test, procure and qualify the engines that their aircraft are supplied with, surely?

Yurt2

AlphabetCards wrote: »

They choose, test, procure and qualify the engines that their aircraft are supplied with, surely?

I recall reading that Boeing lobbied heavily the last decade or so to self-certify aspects of designs and modifications as opposed to US aviation regulators having the final say on safety.


I'm no aviation expert but that was a recurring theme with the 737 Max problems. A bit like builders self-certifying sh*tty apartments during the Celtic Tiger.

Mr Meanor

What the hell is going on with Boeing?
The legacy of Mcdonnell Douglas

Adyx

AlphabetCards wrote: »

They choose, test, procure and qualify the engines that their aircraft are supplied with, surely?

And after many, many years of service, issues are beginning to appear. As you'd expect. I'm no fan of Boeing but if anything this is an issue with maintenance rather than manufacture. Besides, the engine would also be certified by the various aviation authorities too and the engines in these two incidents aren't even from the same manufacturer.

Not to downplay the incident either but what happened in Russia isn't that big a deal. Engine issues (wasn't a failure) are relatively common and the 777 is more than capable of taking off or landing with one engine. The only reason it made the news was because of the United flight.

Harry Palmr

With airlines hit by Covid you'd expect a few corners to be cut from here on unfortunately by certain companies.

gifted

Be grand.......drive her on.

the purple tin

The lad who lives here will probably get a few bob anyway :eek:


Thank God nobody was hurt anyway.

Bobblehats

Boei-oi-oi-oi-ing.....

0lddog

Yurt! wrote: »

Another Boeing emergency landing this time at Moscow after the incident from Colorado a few short days ago......

Jeez Yurt! if you want to have a go at Mr B you might at least pick something that they are supposed to be responsible for.

Reuters report from Yesterday :

"Boeing is beginning painstaking repairs and forensic inspections to fix structural integrity flaws embedded deep inside at least 88 parked 787s built over the last year or so, a third industry source said.The inspections and retrofits could take up to a month per plane and are likely to cost hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars, though it depends on the number of planes and defects involved, the person said."

( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-787-exclusive-idUSKBN2AP2SL )

riclad

I read article about a year ago, it said an expert said i do not not fly in boeing planes, made after after a certain date because there are planes with many metal fragments sealed inside as part of the building process .if a piece of metal gets hot and moves around it could damage wires used to control the wings or connect up the computers that control sensors or
other parts of the flight control systems.
it s cheaper to leave random screws , metal parts fragments inside than remove them all.
this is nothing to do with covid ,its part of a process controlled by managers with the goal of reducing the cost
of building planes .
A modern plane contains 1000s of wires and cables connected to computers and display units and sensors.
Just google boeing safety problems and you,ll get dozens of articles
about it.

Yurt2

riclad wrote: »

I read article about a year ago, it said an expert said i do not not fly in boeing planes, made after after a certain date because there are planes with many metal fragments sealed inside as part of the building process .if a piece of metal gets hot and moves around it could damage wires used to control the wings or connect up the computers that control sensors or
other parts of the flight control systems.
it s cheaper to leave random screws , metal parts fragments inside than remove them all.
this is nothing to do with covid ,its part of a process controlled by managers with the goal of reducing the cost
of building planes .
A modern plane contains 1000s of wires and cables connected to computers and display units and sensors.
Just google boeing safety problems and you,ll get dozens of articles
about it.

I recall an Al Jalzeera undercover documentary about standards at a Boeing plant in the southern US. A journalist with a hidden camera posing as a worker asks a supervisor would he fly in this plane as a passenger. The response was "f*ck no" or to that effect.

silverharp

:pac:

https://twitter.com/BoeingCareers/status/1126940022891008000

ednwireland

Yurt! wrote: »

I recall an Al Jalzeera undercover documentary about standards at a Boeing plant in the southern US. A journalist with a hidden camera posing as a worker asks a supervisor would he fly in this plane as a passenger. The response was "f*ck no" or to that effect.

having worked in rolls royce for several years in the past i always feel better getting on a plane when i see the RR logo on the side of the engine

Bobblehats

There’s like one poc in that tweet. Far right...

mickdw

This is a nothing incident.
Plane lands with faulty engine - happens every day of the week. Its a General Electric engine so no connection with the major failure last week.

I like the 777 and Id arguably pick the 777 as the plane id chose to fly on based on nothing more than its performance is accident situations that ive seen.
Many of its incidents have been due to the pratt and whitney engine and the grounding should finally sort this.
In the situations where they have crash landed, the performance of the structure has been incredible. BA into heathrow landed short. All safe.
Into San fran, the crash could easily have been total fatality but the hull for the most part stayed intact which having seen the footage seems miraculous.

Harry Palmr

Yurt! wrote: »

I recall an Al Jalzeera undercover documentary about standards at a Boeing plant in the southern US. A journalist with a hidden camera posing as a worker asks a supervisor would he fly in this plane as a passenger. The response was "f*ck no" or to that effect.

The Dreamliner in it's current iteration has been criticised quite a bit for it's fit and finish privately but when asked by media all the airlines go "we love our Dreamliners" This is what happens when there are just two aircraft makers of scale, you have to stay friendly with both all the time.

Capt'n Midnight

Also this week bits fell off a 747 in the Netherlands.

Mr Meanor wrote: »

What the hell is going on with Boeing?
The legacy of Mcdonnell Douglas

The legacy of Mcdonnell Douglas accountants.

Before that takeover/merger/cultural reverse take over Boeing was engineer led. Since then not so much.

The 737 Max was a cascade of failure. Way too many software issues. Design issues, build quality issues.

They've also missed lots of milestones in building stuff for NASA

AlphabetCards

Adyx wrote: »

And after many, many years of service, issues are beginning to appear. As you'd expect. I'm no fan of Boeing but if anything this is an issue with maintenance rather than manufacture. Besides, the engine would also be certified by the various aviation authorities too and the engines in these two incidents aren't even from the same manufacturer.

Not to downplay the incident either but what happened in Russia isn't that big a deal. Engine issues (wasn't a failure) are relatively common and the 777 is more than capable of taking off or landing with one engine. The only reason it made the news was because of the United flight.

Hang on, when aircraft manufacturers pick a supplier, they are vouching for this supplier to their customers. They have decided that all aspects of the supply chain are safe enough for a safety-led industry. We are not just talking about the single engine that leaves the Boeing hanger destined for the airline, we are talking about the full services that are supported by the engine manufacturer for after-sales. The replacement parts, the upgrades, the long-term surveillance programmes for weaknesses.

If you see a series of unconnected incidents, that is fine. But in terms of risk management, the increase in smaller, non-fatal incidents surely has an incremental rise in the chance of a larger mass casualty event. In this case, we know Boeing have been pushing out unsafe products - if you need a reminder, just ask the families of the 157 people on board Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.

I for one wont be travelling on any of Ryanairs 8200-MAX (737 in incognito mode).

Unfortunately it seems to be a case of American engineering going the way it always goes - Pioneers in their field to utter dung. Same with all the car manufacturers, they all went the same way pretty much.
I tend to sweat more when I fly on a Boeing jet, but not so much on an airbus

The Tetrarch

riclad wrote: »

Boeing dont build jet engines, engines need to be checked after a certain no of hours, all the planes with that engine are grounded and they are being checked.
theres only a few companys who make jet engines, rolls royce, pratt etc

That is the story. An aircraft is millions of parts made by hundreds of sub-contractors.
Engines and other major parts of the big smooth shiny thing are monitored, and must be removed after a number of hours use, or number of landings/events, and dismantled, examined, rebuilt, tested, and then put back into use.

Adyx

AlphabetCards wrote: »

Hang on, when aircraft manufacturers pick a supplier, they are vouching for this supplier to their customers. They have decided that all aspects of the supply chain are safe enough for a safety-led industry. We are not just talking about the single engine that leaves the Boeing hanger destined for the airline, we are talking about the full services that are supported by the engine manufacturer for after-sales. The replacement parts, the upgrades, the long-term surveillance programmes for weaknesses.

If you see a series of unconnected incidents, that is fine. But in terms of risk management, the increase in smaller, non-fatal incidents surely has an incremental rise in the chance of a larger mass casualty event. In this case, we know Boeing have been pushing out unsafe products - if you need a reminder, just ask the families of the 157 people on board Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.

I for one wont be travelling on any of Ryanairs 8200-MAX (737 in incognito mode).

Yes an engine manufacturer that is used by several aeroplane companies including Airbus. Even the same engine that failed in the United flight is a variant used in some Airbus planes. I wouldn't fly with Ryanair full stop but not because of safety issues. And I'm not saying there aren't serious problems at Boeing, but you can't use this incident as a stick to beat them with if this is the fault of Pratt & Whitney.

0lddog

0lddog wrote: »

Jeez Yurt! if you want to have a go at Mr B you might at least pick something that they are supposed to be responsible for.

Reuters report from Yesterday :

"Boeing is beginning painstaking repairs and forensic inspections to fix structural integrity flaws embedded deep inside at least 88 parked 787s built over the last year or so, a third industry source said.The inspections and retrofits could take up to a month per plane and are likely to cost hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars, though it depends on the number of planes and defects involved, the person said."

( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-787-exclusive-idUSKBN2AP2SL )

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The Dreamliner in it's current iteration has been criticised quite a bit for it's fit and finish privately but when asked by media all the airlines go "we love our Dreamliners" This is what happens when there are just two aircraft makers of scale, you have to stay friendly with both all the time.