Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 97 of 97

Thread: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

  1. #81
    LETS GO BLUE!
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    35,712
    Thanks
    7,752
    Thanked 10,200 Times in 7,474 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    84

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Hey gameboy? Is the max design flawed? Or cant theybjust change the software and it's all good?

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by JATMtheJATM View Post
    Hey gameboy? Is the max design flawed? Or cant theybjust change the software and it's all good?
    They have already fixed it, it's in the approval and testing process.

    Regarding the auto recall comparison, when an automobile has a flaw, the manufacturer issues a recall.
    Boeing did just that, and they will fix it.

    There is a great deal of technical information that goes into airplane design.

    Basically, all potential faults are rated on "time between failure," and if that failure will result in loss.

    This one is no different.

    The time between failure was calculated, and the loss from that was calculated as well, thus the FAA certified it, and the numbers from that testing are impressive,
    American, which has a FOQA program, basically a program to read technical data from its airplanes at all times, has never experienced a sensor problem in well over 10,000 hours of monitoring.

    The first crash was the result of not fixing a known problem.
    The second one, per current evidence, was instantaneous, almost like a bird strike or something ripped the angle of attack sensor off the airplane.
    MCAS engaged, the auto stabilizer trim was turned off, and then turned back on again, resulting in the same, fatal response.

    Again, there is a back story to this that involves a lot more than has been published, not nefarious, but the way it's been done for decades.
    Still certifying this airplane with the MCAS "pilot proof" system was a reasonable process, considering the failure of that system manifested in exactly the same way as a legacy immediate action emergency.

    The world is not going to view it that way, and that's the risk Boeing takes.

    Let's not forget, not that anyone here even knows, but going down the path of blaming the manufacturer for every crash is exactly what destroyed the US general aviation industry, and make no mistake, it was destroyed, and this, along with other issues resulted in the lack of qualified people to replace the massive retirements that the airline industry is dealing with.

  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,420
    Thanks
    8,443
    Thanked 5,970 Times in 3,645 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    36

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    The "US general aviation industry" is "destroyed"?!?!? How so?

    Are you talking about
    manufactures or airline companies.

  4. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by notacon View Post
    The "US general aviation industry" is "destroyed"?!?!? How so?

    Are you talking about
    manufactures or airline companies.
    General Aviation is non commercial, ie., not airlines and not military.

  5. #85
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,420
    Thanks
    8,443
    Thanked 5,970 Times in 3,645 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    36

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    General Aviation is non commercial, ie., not airlines and not military.
    Good to know. That did not answer the question. This is not a trap. I genuinely want to know what you are talking about.

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by notacon View Post
    Good to know. That did not answer the question. This is not a trap. I genuinely want to know what you are talking about.
    I thought I answered it.
    General aviation is that part of the industry that is not airline, other commercial, or military.

  7. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    By the way, just to inoculate myself against some kind of claim, corporate aviation is considered a part of general aviation, and is doing OK.

    My point is that companies like Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper etc., have been decimated by lawsuits that they should never have been held accountable for, and it resulted in a horrible effect on that once thriving industry,

    Same thing exists today, when you have the number one country in the aviation world not produce a regional airliner.
    Know why?

    They can't amortize the legal costs in the US system over the number of passengers.

  8. #88
    Legendary Zoner coastal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    13,978
    Thanks
    15,141
    Thanked 9,597 Times in 5,579 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    46

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    By the way, just to inoculate myself against some kind of claim, corporate aviation is considered a part of general aviation, and is doing OK.

    My point is that companies like Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper etc., have been decimated by lawsuits that they should never have been held accountable for, and it resulted in a horrible effect on that once thriving industry,

    Same thing exists today, when you have the number one country in the aviation world not produce a regional airliner.
    Know why?

    They can't amortize the legal costs in the US system over the number of passengers.
    Did you learn that playing “Flight Simulator”?

  9. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by coastal View Post
    Did you learn that playing “Flight Simulator”?
    The least bit of idiocy here is putting the question mark after to the quotes.

  10. #90
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    19,742
    Thanks
    7,401
    Thanked 9,660 Times in 6,093 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    60

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by coastal View Post
    Did you learn that playing “Flight Simulator”?


    You are certainly a credit to your family, profession and your race!!!!!!
    The artist formerly known as pmoon6 is now Stupid A-hole.

  11. Post thanked by:

    ticatfan (06-26-2019)

  12. #91
    The Meathead of Muslims! ticatfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    ottawa valley
    Posts
    23,526
    Thanks
    5,825
    Thanked 2,545 Times in 2,005 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    70

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    By the way, just to inoculate myself against some kind of claim, corporate aviation is considered a part of general aviation, and is doing OK.

    My point is that companies like Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper etc., have been decimated by lawsuits that they should never have been held accountable for, and it resulted in a horrible effect on that once thriving industry,

    Same thing exists today, when you have the number one country in the aviation world not produce a regional airliner.
    Know why?

    They can't amortize the legal costs in the US system over the number of passengers.
    Would that be behind the selling of the regional jets business by bombardier to Mitsubishi?
    "There is a vacancy for the Ontario Liberal leadership, and if you're so focused on provincial politics, go and run for the leadership of that party, Mr. Trudeau."

  13. #92
    Registered User DraftBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    91,254
    Thanks
    3,990
    Thanked 17,162 Times in 9,651 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    234

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    They have already fixed it, it's in the approval and testing process.

    Regarding the auto recall comparison, when an automobile has a flaw, the manufacturer issues a recall.
    Boeing did just that, and they will fix it.

    There is a great deal of technical information that goes into airplane design.

    Basically, all potential faults are rated on "time between failure," and if that failure will result in loss.

    This one is no different.

    The time between failure was calculated, and the loss from that was calculated as well, thus the FAA certified it, and the numbers from that testing are impressive,
    American, which has a FOQA program, basically a program to read technical data from its airplanes at all times, has never experienced a sensor problem in well over 10,000 hours of monitoring.

    The first crash was the result of not fixing a known problem.
    The second one, per current evidence, was instantaneous, almost like a bird strike or something ripped the angle of attack sensor off the airplane.
    MCAS engaged, the auto stabilizer trim was turned off, and then turned back on again, resulting in the same, fatal response.

    Again, there is a back story to this that involves a lot more than has been published, not nefarious, but the way it's been done for decades.
    Still certifying this airplane with the MCAS "pilot proof" system was a reasonable process, considering the failure of that system manifested in exactly the same way as a legacy immediate action emergency.

    The world is not going to view it that way, and that's the risk Boeing takes.

    Let's not forget, not that anyone here even knows, but going down the path of blaming the manufacturer for every crash is exactly what destroyed the US general aviation industry, and make no mistake, it was destroyed, and this, along with other issues resulted in the lack of qualified people to replace the massive retirements that the airline industry is dealing with.
    It was interesting to read about the Boeing regulatory disclosure yesterday regarding a new issue that the FAA flagged. Boeing hasn't said much about it, but did say they agreed with the regulators. Also this was a different but related issue on the original design not something new from the revised plans to address the previously known issues.

    The new issue involves software that is separate from changes to the aircraft’s faulty flight-control system called MCAS, according to people familiar with the matter. The software system in question, though distinct from MCAS, is related to an emergency procedure that can be used by pilots to address MCAS malfunctions, these people said.

    The plane maker disclosed in a securities filing on Wednesday the Federal Aviation Administration’s request to address the new problem, which it said wouldn’t be covered by planned changes to the MCAS system.

    Boeing said it agreed with the FAA’s decision and is working on the required software fix.

    The software issue involves an emergency procedure that would be used to counteract MCAS if it malfunctions, erroneously pushing the plane’s nose down, according to the people familiar with the matter. The FAA identified the problem last week during simulator tests, these people said, after an agency test pilot determined that the procedure took more time than was acceptable to execute.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-fin...ax-11561596917
    COMING SOON...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Lecter
    We were both drunk and Hillary did not look that bad at 2 AM, I swear!!!!!!

  14. Post thanked by:

    Blondie (06-28-2019),CommissarSpartacus (06-27-2019)

  15. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,420
    Thanks
    8,443
    Thanked 5,970 Times in 3,645 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    36

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    I thought I answered it.
    General aviation is that part of the industry that is not airline, other commercial, or military.
    no, you did not answer my question.

    You said that the general aviation industry has been "destroyed". What do you mean by "destroyed"??! Is no one making aircraft in the general aviation market??

  16. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by notacon View Post
    no, you did not answer my question.

    You said that the general aviation industry has been "destroyed". What do you mean by "destroyed"??! Is no one making aircraft in the general aviation market??
    Of course companies are still producing general aviation airplanes, but nowhere near the level they used to be.
    The result has been a dramatic decrease in participation, a dramatic decrease in pilot's licenses and a dramatic increase in costs related to liability.

    Virtually no more Bellanca, Rockwell, the GA portion of Grumman, and Piper, Beechcraft and Cessna have changed radically.

    Beechcraft estimates that it liability adds $100k to its single engine Bonanza line.
    That is a single engine prop that used to sell for about 100K, now is close to $750k.
    For a simple single engine prop.

    "The pilot population peaked in 1980, with 827,071 licensed pilots. Over the next couple of decades, those numbers started to gradually decline: By 1990, there were only 702,659 licensed pilots, by 2000, there were 625,581 and in 2013, it had slipped to 617,128. At the same time, demand has been steadily rising, leading many to believe there will be a pilot shortage for the foreseeable future. There has also been a sharp drop in the number of aircraft manufactured. In 1978, there were roughly 18,000 general aviation aircraft produced. That number bottomed out at 928 aircraft produced in 1994, before the introduction of the General Aviation Revitalization Act. After GARA passed, things recovered somewhat, but the 1,631 general aviation aircraft produced in 2014 is still a far cry from the golden days of the 1970s."

    https://disciplesofflight.com/general-aviation-issues/

    The General Aviation Regulation Act was written strictly for the purpose of saving the industry from gross product liability costs.

    "At the time, industry analysts estimated that the U.S. decline in general aviation aircraft manufacturing eliminated somewhere between 28,000 and 100,000 jobs—as unit production dropped by 95% between the 1970s peak and the early 1990s—sharply different from other segments of the global aerospace industry, where U.S. market share was still strong.

    Average cost of manufacturer's liability insurance for each airplane manufactured in the U.S. had risen from approximately $50 per plane in 1962 to $100,000 per plane in 1988, according to a report cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,[14] a 2,000-fold increase in 24 years.
    Industry-wide, in just 7 years, the manufacturers' liability premiums increased nearly nine-fold, from approximately $24 million in 1978 to $210 million in 1985."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...talization_Act

    There are a host of other results. Flight training has gotten ridiculously expensive, and is off dramatically.
    I owned a Beech Bonanza A36 from 2004 until 2008. Till then, I had not done anything in General Aviation for about 28 years and I could not believe the difference.

  17. Post thanked by:

    notacon (06-27-2019)

  18. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,420
    Thanks
    8,443
    Thanked 5,970 Times in 3,645 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    36

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    Of course companies are still producing general aviation airplanes, but nowhere near the level they used to be.
    The result has been a dramatic decrease in participation, a dramatic decrease in pilot's licenses and a dramatic increase in costs related to liability.

    Virtually no more Bellanca, Rockwell, the GA portion of Grumman, and Piper, Beechcraft and Cessna have changed radically.

    Beechcraft estimates that it liability adds $100k to its single engine Bonanza line.
    That is a single engine prop that used to sell for about 100K, now is close to $750k.
    For a simple single engine prop.

    "The pilot population peaked in 1980, with 827,071 licensed pilots. Over the next couple of decades, those numbers started to gradually decline: By 1990, there were only 702,659 licensed pilots, by 2000, there were 625,581 and in 2013, it had slipped to 617,128. At the same time, demand has been steadily rising, leading many to believe there will be a pilot shortage for the foreseeable future. There has also been a sharp drop in the number of aircraft manufactured. In 1978, there were roughly 18,000 general aviation aircraft produced. That number bottomed out at 928 aircraft produced in 1994, before the introduction of the General Aviation Revitalization Act. After GARA passed, things recovered somewhat, but the 1,631 general aviation aircraft produced in 2014 is still a far cry from the golden days of the 1970s."

    https://disciplesofflight.com/general-aviation-issues/

    The General Aviation Regulation Act was written strictly for the purpose of saving the industry from gross product liability costs.

    "At the time, industry analysts estimated that the U.S. decline in general aviation aircraft manufacturing eliminated somewhere between 28,000 and 100,000 jobs—as unit production dropped by 95% between the 1970s peak and the early 1990s—sharply different from other segments of the global aerospace industry, where U.S. market share was still strong.

    Average cost of manufacturer's liability insurance for each airplane manufactured in the U.S. had risen from approximately $50 per plane in 1962 to $100,000 per plane in 1988, according to a report cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,[14] a 2,000-fold increase in 24 years.
    Industry-wide, in just 7 years, the manufacturers' liability premiums increased nearly nine-fold, from approximately $24 million in 1978 to $210 million in 1985."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...talization_Act

    There are a host of other results. Flight training has gotten ridiculously expensive, and is off dramatically.
    I owned a Beech Bonanza A36 from 2004 until 2008. Till then, I had not done anything in General Aviation for about 28 years and I could not believe the difference.
    Thank you. Very interesting information. I'll read the links you provided.

  19. #96
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,684
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,224 Times in 736 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by notacon View Post
    Thank you. Very interesting information. I'll read the links you provided.
    There is actionable information here.

    If your kid is interested in becoming an airline pilot, there is a significant shortage that is not going to be resolved soon, and the pay at the majors is very good.

  20. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,420
    Thanks
    8,443
    Thanked 5,970 Times in 3,645 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    36

    Re: Sully Sullenberger throws Boeing under the bus

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    There is actionable information here.

    If your kid is interested in becoming an airline pilot, there is a significant shortage that is not going to be resolved soon, and the pay at the majors is very good.
    Well...that would certainly be an interesting career, but my daughters are already on their way....and becoming a pilot has never been on their radar screen. I have a feeling they never even gave it a second thought because of the math. They both tired calculus in college and failed miserably.

    But, again, thanks for the info. I'm just interested as an educational exercise.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •