Latest Boeing News
And I’m the one not familiar with the accident!
I’ve added bold to your quote because that’s exactly what the FO did!
In the case of AF447 it trimmed full nose up because the pilot held full back stick pretty much for the entire duration. And I can say with certainty it takes quite a lot of effort to hold full back stick against the spring.
My point is, if they didn’t recognise the issue enough to release the full back stick then they certainly wouldn’t have recognised it enough to reset the stab trim.
I’ve added bold to your quote because that’s exactly what the FO did!
In the case of AF447 it trimmed full nose up because the pilot held full back stick pretty much for the entire duration. And I can say with certainty it takes quite a lot of effort to hold full back stick against the spring.
My point is, if they didn’t recognise the issue enough to release the full back stick then they certainly wouldn’t have recognised it enough to reset the stab trim.
They were taught at the time that this airplane could not stall.
If they had been taught that there is a button to press when everything goes awry, to help gain back control, they could have pressed it.
Teaching this would have been incompatible with teaching that the airplane could not stall.
As for the SWA incident..
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/s...escent-hawaii/
See this thread. What I was describing in this thread is very close to what happened.
The FO pushed. The A/T reduced thrust. So the airplane descended even quicker.
We'll see if an out of trim condition was the cause of this or if it was just a jolt on the wheel, but the concept of A/T unduly reducing thrust because the airplane unduly pitches down is the same.
A/T: is it really helping you ?
I tried the maneuver described here in the FFS. I tried an out of trim condition of only 3 knots, we were at 7000 feet. In less than time than necessary to explain what I expected to see to my two colleagues (pilot and instructor), the airplane was already in a full blown idle descent.
The following users liked this post:
Boeing CEO is scheduled to appear before a Senate Committee on Tuesday (Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs). Presumably much attention will be given to the company's actions (or assertions about actions, depending on one's point of view) following the Expert Panel's report on safety culture (or problems with same) and actions by FAA.This is the same Senate Subcommittee which heard the testimony not long ago of highly-publicized whistleblower Sam Salehpour.
Meanwhile, Senator Grassley has sent lengthy, detailed letters to FAA and Boeing requesting what would appear to be significant volumes of information, after asserting much chapter-and-verse of Boeing's travails (that is, according to the Senator). Near as I can tell, the letters relate back to the Senator's decades-long advocacy for whistleblowers and their protection, among other reasons. (Sen. Grassley is Ranking member on the Budget Committee, which (afaik) has not scheduled hearings regarding FAA and/or Boeing.)
Given Mr. Calhoun's scheduled appearance before Sen. Blumenthal's Subcommittee (noted above), if the link works, and 11 pages (single-spaced) of scoring Boeing sounds like a good pre-game for viewing the CEO's appearance, well here it is:
grassley_to_boeing_-_737_max
Or the Senator's website, under Official Correspondence - where the similar letter to FAA also may be accessed (it's 12 and a half pages).
Meanwhile, Senator Grassley has sent lengthy, detailed letters to FAA and Boeing requesting what would appear to be significant volumes of information, after asserting much chapter-and-verse of Boeing's travails (that is, according to the Senator). Near as I can tell, the letters relate back to the Senator's decades-long advocacy for whistleblowers and their protection, among other reasons. (Sen. Grassley is Ranking member on the Budget Committee, which (afaik) has not scheduled hearings regarding FAA and/or Boeing.)
Given Mr. Calhoun's scheduled appearance before Sen. Blumenthal's Subcommittee (noted above), if the link works, and 11 pages (single-spaced) of scoring Boeing sounds like a good pre-game for viewing the CEO's appearance, well here it is:
grassley_to_boeing_-_737_max
Or the Senator's website, under Official Correspondence - where the similar letter to FAA also may be accessed (it's 12 and a half pages).
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 18th Jun 2024 at 04:30.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...correspondence
Link to Sen. Grassley's website - Official Correspondence list ... that should be the desired link:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...correspondence
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...correspondence
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/18/b...ony/index.html
From the CNN article: "the company told employees"
A company doesn't tell employees. Someone with a name does. When I hear names then that's when it's real.
Hint to safety conscious workers - drill a big f;ing hole through any non-conforming part or find Mr. Bandsaw or grab the Rattle Can of Truth rather than storing on a shelf.
We used the big hole method with circuit boards that failed the coupon test when a supplier wanted them back "to check them," so we made sure that new coupons didn't get submitted with a round trip on those boards.
A company doesn't tell employees. Someone with a name does. When I hear names then that's when it's real.
Hint to safety conscious workers - drill a big f;ing hole through any non-conforming part or find Mr. Bandsaw or grab the Rattle Can of Truth rather than storing on a shelf.
We used the big hole method with circuit boards that failed the coupon test when a supplier wanted them back "to check them," so we made sure that new coupons didn't get submitted with a round trip on those boards.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
Age: 47
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean, that's a nice sounding theory and all, great stump speech, but many non-conformances are re-workable to become compliant with the drawing by following documented MRB procedures. If you intentionally destroy a multi million dollar part that could have been repaired without having paperwork that tells you to do that, you should definitely and rightly expect to be fired with no chance to collect your personal property for fear you would cause more sabotage on the way out the door. Probably a Wobbly.
And really, the entire MAX door fiasco seems to have been caused by a worker removing parts (the door bolts) from the airplane without having the correct paperwork in hand saying that the parts should be removed and what should happen to them after they are removed. There can be no tolerance for individual initiative in aerospace manufacturing. Instead of recommending sabotage, we should be ensuring that both aerospace manufacturers and employees strictly work to policy and procedure, and to speak up when the procedure is inadequate or not being followed, and change procedures that are not working to deliver a safe, conforming product.
Some fun scrapping anecdotes -
I one had a pretty expensive special tool get tossed because it happened to be painted the same color that the local site I was working at used as their Rattle Can of Truth for scrapped parts. It wasn't even spray painted, the factory finish just matched their scrap color.
I also once had to scrap several tens of millions of dollars worth of vacuum-insulated panels by crushing them with a front-end loader. They were perfectly conforming to drawing, but the result of a failed business venture between two huge companies, and proof of destruction was needed for tax/lawsuit purposes. I definite wanted to scrap a few of them into my truck to insulate my attic.
Last edited by slacktide; 18th Jun 2024 at 18:06.
And really, the entire MAX door fiasco seems to have been caused by a worker removing parts (the door bolts) from the airplane without having the correct paperwork in hand saying that the parts should be removed and what should happen to them after they are removed. There can be no tolerance for individual initiative in aerospace manufacturing. Instead of recommending sabotage, we should be ensuring that both aerospace manufacturers and employees strictly work to policy and procedure, and to speak up when the procedure is inadequate or not being followed, and change procedures that are not working to deliver a safe, conforming product.
What they should be asking is: WHY was there no paperwork? Was this a one-off, by lazy employee(s), or was it common practice to skip the paperwork, and this time it caught them out? If it was a one-off, then proper re-training to emphasize the importance of doing the job right - including the paperwork - might be sufficient. If it was common practice, then the question is why was it a common practice? Again, lazy employees? Pressure from management? An unintended consequence of pushing to improve quality (e.g. rewards for reduced rework, so if the rework gets performed without paperwork, it doesn't get counted? Something else?
THAT'S what the FAA should be investigating...
The following 16 users liked this post by tdracer:
Edited to add: From Dominic Gates' story on the new Mohawk allegations in the Seattle Times:
Mohawk’s complaint states that during an August 2023 meeting, the head of Boeing‘s Material Review Board for the 737 MAX program “reiterated his order for everyone to cancel and delete NCRs [nonconformance reports], and not to keep a written record of nonconforming parts.”
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 18th Jun 2024 at 19:53. Reason: Add Seattle Times quote and link.
CNN may or may not know the names of accused individuals and may or may not have enough information to use them if they do. Those people, if they exist, probably aren't public figures and I'm sure CNN's lawyers don't want to risk seeing their company added to the list of defendants in a libel suit if it isn't essential for reporting at this point. Not seeing names in early media coverage isn't a good reason to reject the claim.
I do like the smoke test.
That is a point, if CNN was making the claim, but this is based on Mohawk's account, which means that, if the names were there, CNN could say there were named individuals, just currently withheld. Since CNN didn't report it that way it seems likely that Mohawk's allegation doesn't either.
I haven't checked to see who that is/was, but it's enough of an identification to solidify an accusation. Not prove an accusation, of course.
The information
Link is for the press release by Sen. Blumenthal's office, in which interested persons may access additional links for a memo from the Senator to members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Sen. Blumenthal is Chair of the Subcomm.) and "the documents" relating to or reflecting the most recent whistleblower allegations.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/ne...whistleblowers
Thr Subcommittee hearing today was sort of a classic Washington media barrage, with a few serious questions, some (excuse me) utterly pointless or inane ones, and some white-hot interrogation-like verbal assault by the former Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Sen. Josh Hawley. Did the hearing, though, advance any of the serious matters pending at present? It's doubtful. Probably any qualified executives considering a move to get the CEO job already know how bad things can get before a Senate panel ..... probably.
Edit: the memo technically is from the Subcommittee Majority Staff .... under the authority of the Chair. Also, just in case anyone might be unclear, this SLF/attorney had nothing to do with the apparently extensive redactions in some of the many pages of documents. I just posted the link to the Subcommittee press item. It does appear that the memo and accompanying documents constitute a pretty significant public disclosure, i.e., the whistleblower legal complaint very recently filed by Sam Mohawk, the transcript of John Barnett's deposition, I mean . . . . and still not scrolled through everything yet.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/ne...whistleblowers
Thr Subcommittee hearing today was sort of a classic Washington media barrage, with a few serious questions, some (excuse me) utterly pointless or inane ones, and some white-hot interrogation-like verbal assault by the former Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Sen. Josh Hawley. Did the hearing, though, advance any of the serious matters pending at present? It's doubtful. Probably any qualified executives considering a move to get the CEO job already know how bad things can get before a Senate panel ..... probably.
Edit: the memo technically is from the Subcommittee Majority Staff .... under the authority of the Chair. Also, just in case anyone might be unclear, this SLF/attorney had nothing to do with the apparently extensive redactions in some of the many pages of documents. I just posted the link to the Subcommittee press item. It does appear that the memo and accompanying documents constitute a pretty significant public disclosure, i.e., the whistleblower legal complaint very recently filed by Sam Mohawk, the transcript of John Barnett's deposition, I mean . . . . and still not scrolled through everything yet.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 18th Jun 2024 at 23:05.
So it's multiple separate problems. Storage of what appears to be conforming material improperly, putting non-conforming material into the assembly line (calling red paint), and falsifying quality records on the request of the Head of MRB.
That latter is what the CYA memo is for, with a copy going to corporate legal and a printout going with me to a safe deposit box. "Please confirm that you want to destroy the following records, attached, from the quality system per your verbal instruction on XX-XX-XXXX."
Presuming the committee had this information and could contact Mohawk to confirm the name, I am surprised he was not subpoenaed as well. Until the fear is on the factory floor from outside it won't change the inside.
That latter is what the CYA memo is for, with a copy going to corporate legal and a printout going with me to a safe deposit box. "Please confirm that you want to destroy the following records, attached, from the quality system per your verbal instruction on XX-XX-XXXX."
Presuming the committee had this information and could contact Mohawk to confirm the name, I am surprised he was not subpoenaed as well. Until the fear is on the factory floor from outside it won't change the inside.
"Meanwhile back in space," NASA seems to be taking pains to avoid a real-life Major Tom unable to fire enough thrusters to de-orbit.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-ex...ruster-issues/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-ex...ruster-issues/
Link is for the press release by Sen. Blumenthal's office, in which interested persons may access additional links for a memo from the Senator to members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Sen. Blumenthal is Chair of the Subcomm.) and "the documents" relating to or reflecting the most recent whistleblower allegations.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/ne...whistleblowers
Thr Subcommittee hearing today was sort of a classic Washington media barrage, with a few serious questions, some (excuse me) utterly pointless or inane ones, and some white-hot interrogation-like verbal assault by the former Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Sen. Josh Hawley. Did the hearing, though, advance any of the serious matters pending at present? It's doubtful. Probably any qualified executives considering a move to get the CEO job already know how bad things can get before a Senate panel ..... probably.
Edit: the memo technically is from the Subcommittee Majority Staff .... under the authority of the Chair. Also, just in case anyone might be unclear, this SLF/attorney had nothing to do with the apparently extensive redactions in some of the many pages of documents. I just posted the link to the Subcommittee press item. It does appear that the memo and accompanying documents constitute a pretty significant public disclosure, i.e., the whistleblower legal complaint very recently filed by Sam Mohawk, the transcript of John Barnett's deposition, I mean . . . . and still not scrolled through everything yet.
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/ne...whistleblowers
Thr Subcommittee hearing today was sort of a classic Washington media barrage, with a few serious questions, some (excuse me) utterly pointless or inane ones, and some white-hot interrogation-like verbal assault by the former Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Sen. Josh Hawley. Did the hearing, though, advance any of the serious matters pending at present? It's doubtful. Probably any qualified executives considering a move to get the CEO job already know how bad things can get before a Senate panel ..... probably.
Edit: the memo technically is from the Subcommittee Majority Staff .... under the authority of the Chair. Also, just in case anyone might be unclear, this SLF/attorney had nothing to do with the apparently extensive redactions in some of the many pages of documents. I just posted the link to the Subcommittee press item. It does appear that the memo and accompanying documents constitute a pretty significant public disclosure, i.e., the whistleblower legal complaint very recently filed by Sam Mohawk, the transcript of John Barnett's deposition, I mean . . . . and still not scrolled through everything yet.
As SLF/attorney my own fave was when the Senator who chairs the Subcommittee started into a line of questions about a "roll" incident that occurred recently. If I was paying attention closely enough, the question didn't even include the word "Dutch". Calhoun invoked the NTSB, the fact it has started its inquiry into the incident. And that was that. "See?", it was tempting to think, "the system is working."
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 19th Jun 2024 at 15:53.
Headline on Fortune story about the hearing, picked up by Yahoo Finance:
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun admits ‘something went wrong’ after a worker who flagged a safety issue got 40 manager calls in two days
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun admits ‘something went wrong’ after a worker who flagged a safety issue got 40 manager calls in two days
Boeing manager and whistleblower John Barnett, who died in March of an apparent suicide, received 21 phone calls from his supervisor in a single day, and 19 on another day, after Barnett raised concerns about missing parts. According to Blumenthal, when Barnett confronted the supervisor about the calls, the supervisor told him he would “push him until he broke.”
The following users liked this post:
24.78 Billion Dollars Claimed
Yesterday's Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations certainly created a further sense of drama around the as yet unresolved issues arising from the two 737 MAX accidents.
Well, news reports today state that families of persons who died in the two crashes have sent, through their attorney, a letter . . . 32 pages in length, in which demands for criminal prosecution are made, including a claim for 24.78 billion dollars (in fines, not damages awards to the families), and for prosecution of individuals.
Having already treated forum readership (which I hope still recognizes sarcasm) to several legal documents publicly released by the Senate Subcommittee, why not go further? So the link that follows is from the website of one of the plaintiffs' side law firms with major representation in the litigation on the crashes, and it should take anyone who cares to read it, to the letter in question. (This SLF/attorney has no business or other connection with the law firm or the attorney who wrote the letter and I have neither requested nor received any approval or permission to post from their site - it's just that this entire saga has had such deep impacts in many respects, and as noted, yesterday the Senate Subcommittee put a Dept of Labor complaint and deposition transcript into the public square, so, I'm just following their example.)
https://www.cliffordlaw.com/boeing-7...ng-executives/
Well, news reports today state that families of persons who died in the two crashes have sent, through their attorney, a letter . . . 32 pages in length, in which demands for criminal prosecution are made, including a claim for 24.78 billion dollars (in fines, not damages awards to the families), and for prosecution of individuals.
Having already treated forum readership (which I hope still recognizes sarcasm) to several legal documents publicly released by the Senate Subcommittee, why not go further? So the link that follows is from the website of one of the plaintiffs' side law firms with major representation in the litigation on the crashes, and it should take anyone who cares to read it, to the letter in question. (This SLF/attorney has no business or other connection with the law firm or the attorney who wrote the letter and I have neither requested nor received any approval or permission to post from their site - it's just that this entire saga has had such deep impacts in many respects, and as noted, yesterday the Senate Subcommittee put a Dept of Labor complaint and deposition transcript into the public square, so, I'm just following their example.)
https://www.cliffordlaw.com/boeing-7...ng-executives/
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 19th Jun 2024 at 22:10.