Posted on 01/10/2020 6:59:02 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
The release of a batch of internal messages has raised more questions about the safety of Boeing's 737 Max. In one of the communications, an employee said the plane was "designed by clowns". The planemaker described the communications as "completely unacceptable". The 737 Max was grounded in March 2019 after two fatal crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed almost 350 people in total.
Boeing said it had released the hundreds of redacted messages as part of its commitment to transparency. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and US Congress were given unredacted versions of the communications last month.
"These communications do not reflect the company we are and need to be, and they are completely unacceptable," Boeing said.
One unnamed employee wrote in an exchange of instant messages in April 2017: "This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."
The documents, which have been published by the Washington Post, appear to show that Boeing rejected pilots being trained on simulators, which would have led to higher costs for its customers, making its aircraft less attractive.
"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to Max," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot at the time, Mark Forkner, said in a March 2017 email.
"Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."
On Tuesday this week, Boeing reversed its position by recommending 737 Max simulator training for all pilots.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
“And managed by monkeys”
Funny how BBC left that part out.
I’m always amazed at what people put in corporate emails. Those comments never go away. They can be brought back.
My advise to every young rookie coming into my Dept is: “This computer isn’t yours. This email account isn’t yours. Everything you write can be reviewed. Watch your words.”
Any yet it’s amazing how quickly they forget.
I’ve been thinking that the plane was designed by people with H1B visas from China. Who has a greater interest in seeing Boeing fail?
Managed by MBA's.......monkeys are smarter.
Keeping such records is critical, especially for any publicly traded company.
I sure wish government was held to the same record retention policies......
Yep, this Max business is going to be a millstone around Boeing’s neck for many years. Shortly after those two crashes I read a short description of how the plane was designed. It’s essentially the existing 737 but with larger, heavier engines. Because of their size and weight, the engines had to be mounted at a different location on the wings, causing a significant weight shift. The software then had to be kludged to compensate. And then there was matter of insufficient training . . .
I’m betting they are all woke, multicultural and diverse clowns and monkeys.
This is management driving too hard and engineering not admitting they cannot solve the problem.
you hit the nail on the head.
“This is management driving too hard and engineering not admitting they cannot solve the problem.”
I have no first hand knowledge of the situation. If you do, then I take what you say as true. I’m just going by the hiring practices I see around me in an unrelated industry. When you hire based on group membership first, and qualifications second, you get second rate output.
No no no’...just make it as cheap as possible!
Maybe they should install chaff and flare launchers on all jets.
Airbus announced the A320Neo series of more fuel-efficient aircraft.
Boeing needed a competitive product.
Boeing had 2 choices: 1) Design an entirely new aircraft -or- 2) Modify the current 737NG
Choice 1 would mean a new “type-rating” that requires pilots to be trained specifically for that aircraft.
Choice 2 would mean existing 737NG pilots could fly the 737Max
Southwest Airlines (who only uses 737NG jets) wanted the second choice so it did not have to requalify pilots for a new aircraft type...a high cost per pilot. It also means you have different pools of pilots that fly different aircraft.
Airbus was collecting orders for the A320Neo while Boeing was lagging. Management pushed to use the current 737NG, install the more fuel efficient engines and utilize a computer to compensate for the differences even though the 737NG still uses hydraulics and direct cable linkages for flying.
The 737Max became a Frankenstein of computer control and manual control.
Pilots were not informed properly that the computer had the ability to put the plane into an unrecoverable dive.
That is what happened.
The 737 Max was designed in a rush job to eliminate competition from the new at the time slightly superior Bombardier C series jets. It worked since the C series development was slow and sales were poor largely due to the more readily available 737 Max which Boeing pushed hard. Bombardier eventually sold the C series to Airbus due to all this. Boeing won the battle but it may have cost them far more than they realized.
“Boeing rejected pilots being trained on simulators, which would have led to higher costs for its customers, making its aircraft less attractive.”
This is not new. It’s been known from early in this debacle. Boeing wanted to avoid the Max becoming an entirely new type of aircraft that would have made it noncompetitive.
At a company where I once was a Mfg. Engr. I used to go out on the line and listen. You can learn from the workers. When discussing a certain corporate rule, one of the workers said, “There’s no reason for it. It’s just our policy!”. Nailed it. I never forgot it.
Yes, exactly. In every company I’ve worked for, I’ve known many people who would have written such a “clowns and monkeys” missive. Nothing new there at all. It’s SOP for rank and file to bitch and moan about engineers and management.
They’re churning out even worse MBAs these days I’m sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.