Boeing’s on a streak...

Bell206 said:
I merely shared my personal experiences on the topic. Whether you believe those experiences or not is totally on you.
Click to expand...
I re-read your previous posts and what I found were not experiences, but opinions ("...eclipsed the MCAS issue in my opinion"). Some of us make the distinction.

That said, PoA is an internet forum. Anyone may opine, nothing is at stake, and nothing is totally on me, you, or anyone else.
Bell206 said:
And will I spend my time and effort to recreate “reports/documents/findings” given to me by others to convince you?
Click to expand...
As you wish, but statements such as that are sometimes evasions made by those who don't actually know what they are talking about. However, such a characterization seems quite at odds with what I have read in many of your posts to this forum--you seem to posses an impressive wealth of technical knowledge and your replies have been helpful to many (which is what I had hoped for).
Bell206 said:
However, I did give you the basic premise of my point along with several examples to start your research into the matter, if it is important to you. But, yes, based on my years of researching aviation topics you will need to look beyond the first 2 pages on Google to get your "relevant" answers.
Click to expand...
I may already have researched the matter(s). I may also have direct experience with both Boeing and Airbus aircraft, including their design philosophies, technical architectures, operating characteristics, and blah blah blah. What I do not have is behind-the-scenes insider knowledge of their respective corporate clockworks, the ways in which their corporate culture and management ethos drive safety-related decisions that have a real-world impact on me and people I care about, who operate and travel on aircraft that Airbus and Boeing produce. I also do not have any insider knowledge of the ways and manner in which news media have been "controlled" with respect to their reporting of issues involving Airbus and its aircraft. These two issues seem to underlie comments you made in post #34, which is why I asked for some fact-based enlightenment.
Bell206 said:
Nor am I going to rehash the MCAS here.
Click to expand...
We can all be thankful for that.
 
Industrial espionage? Competitor (likely a proxy) pays people a lot of money to leave bolts out, and cotter keys out of lug nuts, and various other innocuous items that keep BA in the news - in a negative light. BA loses business as buyers take business to competitors. May be a dash of DEI tossed in - for plausible deniability.
 
FORANE said:
abc7news.com

Tire falls off United flight departing SFO, crushing several vehicles in parking lot, company says

A tire fell off a United Airlines flight taking off from SFO to Osaka, Japan Thursday morning, officials confirmed. SKY7 was over a parking lot nearby, where it appears the tire hit and damaged cars.
abc7news.com abc7news.com
Click to expand...
I would think pilots on an aviation forum might know the difference between a failure by an airframe builder and an incident precipitated by a possibly defective tire or maintenance issue.
 
3393RP said:
I would think pilots on an aviation forum might know the difference between a failure by an airframe builder and an incident precipitated by a possibly defective tire or maintenance issue.
Click to expand...
Your assumption of causation is likely accurate, but given recent events this incident still reflects poorly on Boeing, even if unjustified.
 
FORANE said:
Your assumption of causation is likely accurate, but given recent events this incident still reflects poorly on Boeing, even if unjustified.
Click to expand...

If its unjustified, why give it attention?
 
Bacho said:
If its unjustified, why give it attention?
Click to expand...
It may be unjustified; we don't know. I linked the article about it thinking it was related to the subject of this thread and some readers may be interested in seeing it. I did not foresee a subset of readers who would prefer to not see it.
 
Bacho said:
If its unjustified, why give it attention?
Click to expand...

Prove it IS unjustified. Right now, we don't know.
Could it be just a maint issue? Yes.
Could MCAS have been just a human error? Yes, but we know it was Boeing being stupider than anybody gave them credit for. I don't think even the Boeing haters envisioned Boeing being that stupid.
Could the emergency plug have been some non-Boeing issue? Yes, but we now know that Boeing's QA is (and presumably has been) a bit lacking.

Back to the original question, though. Could this be a simple non-Boeing maint issue? Yes.
But is it? I, for one, will wait until the investigation comes back before confidently saying they're not at fault.

There are plenty of times that people/companies get bad reps for things beyond their control. That is not the case here. The question regarding Boeing of "We know about <MCAS, the door, a couple of other things>, what DON'T we know about?" is actually quite valid, and fairly earned.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Boeing (and their 767 control scheme) say hi.

On the 767 (and probably others as well), if the two pilots apply opposite pitch commands beyond a certain force, a pin will shear, allowing them to move independently. At that point, Captain's pitch input drives the LH side horizontal stabilizer, and the FO's drive the R/H side. No annunciation is provided in the cockpit when that happens. See Egypt Air 990.
Click to expand...
two totally diffent systems, the airbus has no direct connection between sidesticks. it is completely computer driven. the sticks move independent of each other. if one stick is move aft and the other stick is moved forward they cancel each outer out. if they are moved in the same direction they add the input. both sticks moving at the same time will generate a "dual input" warning. pushing the red button will lock the other stick out.
 
guest user said:
Prove it IS unjustified. Right now, we don't know.
Could it be just a maint issue? Yes.
Could MCAS have been just a human error? Yes, but we know it was Boeing being stupider than anybody gave them credit for. I don't think even the Boeing haters envisioned Boeing being that stupid.
Could the emergency plug have been some non-Boeing issue? Yes, but we now know that Boeing's QA is (and presumably has been) a bit lacking.

Back to the original question, though. Could this be a simple non-Boeing maint issue? Yes.
But is it? I, for one, will wait until the investigation comes back before confidently saying they're not at fault.

There are plenty of times that people/companies get bad reps for things beyond their control. That is not the case here. The question regarding Boeing of "We know about <MCAS, the door, a couple of other things>, what DON'T we know about?" is actually quite valid, and fairly earned.
Click to expand...


Guilty until proven innocent?
 
:) If we're going to attach random human characteristics to corporations, maybe none of this is really Boeings fault at all. It's just that they grew up in a confusing time, with bad parents and in a questionable neighborhood. It's a half step away from having an imaginary friend and expecting them to answer back when you talk to them on the playground.
 
guest user said:
Back to the original question, though. Could this be a simple non-Boeing maint issue? Yes.
But is it? I, for one, will wait until the investigation comes back before confidently saying they're not at fault.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

I'll use common sense and state Boeing has absolutely no connection to or responsibility for a 777-200 that was placed in service in December 2001 losing a tire and wheel assembly.
 
3393RP said:
:rolleyes:

I'll use common sense and state Boeing has absolutely no connection to or responsibility for a 777-200 that was placed in service in December 2001 losing a tire and wheel assembly.
Click to expand...

Let's play devil's advocate.
Sure the aircraft was ~23yrs old.
How old were the actual components in play here?
The wheel, where did it come from? Was it the same 23y/o wheel or was it a recently purchased one? Who made it? Was it purchased from Boeing, or some other maker? My understanding is that when a tire is replaced they replace the whole tire/wheel combo as a swappable unit rather than breaking down the wheel (split rim is my understanding) to keep the same wheel with the aircraft.
The wheel bearing? Same questions since I can only imagine those getting replaced at some point during a maintenance check.

Unless your contention is that the wheel and bearing have been giving 23yrs of faithful service to the same aircraft, then how can you not be curious as to the history of those parts?
-----
But, maybe you're right and anybody who wants to know details about these things is obviously wasting their time.
 
Bacho said:
Guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

More like "No verdict until all evidence is presented."


See above post for questions I consider reasonable to want answers to before rendering a verdict.
 
guest user said:
How old were the actual components in play here?
Click to expand...
FYI: doubtful there are any original rotatable components on a 23 year old transport aircraft and especially the wheels and tires. But from my viewpoint and experience I would be 100% confident Boeing has zero liability with this issue or any other similar issue. And yes, the wheels, tires, and brakes are individually tracked and are serviced on their own schedule and usually by an in-house "wheel and brake shop." And in some cases an operator may also lease tires and/or wheels which would be serviced by an outside 3rd party.
 
When a tire is replaced, the new tire is already mounted on a wheel. The original wheels only stay with a new airplane for as long as the original tires last.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: doubtful there are any original rotatable components on a 23 year old transport aircraft and especially the wheels and tires. But from my viewpoint and experience I would be 100% confident Boeing has zero liability with this issue or any other similar issue. And yes, the wheels, tires, and brakes are individually tracked and are serviced on their own schedule and usually by an in-house "wheel and brake shop." And in some cases an operator may also lease tires and/or wheels which would be serviced by an outside 3rd party.
Click to expand...

Glad we are in agreement that the components in question are not the original, so therefore the fact that the airframe is 23yo has absolutely no bearing on the age of the components.

So how old were these particular components, how many hours on them, how many to/ldgs? We do not know.

I completely 100% agree w/ you that this SHOULD be on the United mx team. Somehow the tech who installed the wheel, tire, bearing, whatever messed up. Absolutely.

However, there is still that 0.000000000001 chance that somehow this is a new wheel that was defective from factory. I'm going to wait until the evidence is finalized before rendering judgement.
 
Had a picture, but can't find it now, of a 737 nose gear where one side of the axel snapped off. Also can't remember now if it was on landing or takeoff.
 
guest user said:
Somehow the tech who installed the wheel, tire, bearing, whatever messed up. Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Or it could have been a mechanical failure vs a mechanic failure as well.
guest user said:
However, there is still that 0.000000000001 chance that somehow this is a new wheel that was defective from factory.
Click to expand...
Except in this case it would have been a Goodrich or Honeywell defect and not a Boeing defect.
 
Bell206 said:
Except in this case it would have been a Goodrich or Honeywell defect and not a Boeing defect.
Click to expand...

I learned something today, and I abandon my position that this might be related to Boeing.
 
Bell206 said:
But from my viewpoint and experience I would be 100% confident Boeing has zero liability with this issue or any other similar issue.
Click to expand...
The lawyer on the other post (the lawsuit one ) might disagree with you on that one.
 
They also get into awkward positions.

 
francisco collazos said:
The lawyer on the other post (the lawsuit one ) might disagree with you on that one.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't doubt it. But its been my experience that most plaintiff's attorneys disagree with most things to include the truth when appropriate to the cause.;)
 
Bell206 said:
Wouldn't doubt it. But its been my experience that most plaintiff's attorneys disagree with most things to include the truth when appropriate to the cause.;)
Click to expand...

It’s been my experience respective of side, counsel will find a way to support or disagree with whatever you’re willing to pay them to support or disagree with.
 
TCABM said:
It’s been my experience respective of side, counsel will find a way to support or disagree with whatever you’re willing to pay them to support or disagree with.
Click to expand...
Quite true. But then again, I never worked for any aviation plaintiffs. Based on what I was usually requested to provide, I always found it easier to substantiate the existing facts of the defendant’s side, then trying to establish the unknown facts of the opposing counsel's choice.
 
AviationObserver said:
NTSB's Homendy testified in front of Senate Commerce Committee recently...Boeing is being uncooperative...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765729065766375652

View attachment 126366
Click to expand...
This might be from the same news source--here is a quote I find literally incredible:

"To date, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft," Homendy wrote to Sens. Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz. "Boeing has informed us that they are unable to find the records documenting this work."

If we are at a point where an airplane manufacturer mislays or destroys records, I fear we have lost the trust that underlays the social contract in America. This seems like a much bigger deal than the door failure itself.
 
Seems pretty clear they're going to go with the "lost records are better than negligent work" strategy. They'll claim all the work that should have been done was done, and that their only sin was some paperwork.

If you haven't already read it...

9780593454732.jpeg
 
Hengelo said:
Seems pretty clear they're going to go with the "lost records are better than negligent work" strategy. They'll claim all the work that should have been done was done, and that their only sin was some paperwork.

If you haven't already read it...

View attachment 126636
Click to expand...
Thank you, just put a hold on it on Libby.
 
Wow.

I wasn't going to bring this up before, but there's more than one reason to not document something. The simplest is either laziness or poor procedure. Another is to avoid documenting poor procedures. But another reason is financial, specifically accounting.

If Boeing copied Welch leadership style, there's another thing they may have copied, that has been alleged and rumored, but to my knowledge never proven. The Welch company's R&D department in Schenectady worked on both commercial and government projects. Same teams, just different work. That part's true. The rumor was that they weren't necessarily charging the right group for the right work.

All speculation. But when a company run by accountants isn't keeping track of something that has a cost associated with it, like labor, there may be a reason.
 
Latest is they’re claiming they over-wrote the video evidence…
 
Albany Tom said:
But another reason is financial, specifically accounting.
Click to expand...
FYI: and its not just the C-suite that has a financial stake. You'll find most union contracts have production bonuses as well, so even the people working on the hangar floor have "incentive" not to document f'ups.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top