Posted on 06/29/2019 7:01:32 AM PDT by rfmadjr
(WIkipedia...."During the certification process, the FAA delegated many evaluations to Boeing, allowing the manufacturer to review their own product.[48][49] It was widely reported that Boeing pushed to expedite approval of the 737 MAX to compete with the Airbus A320neo. That aircraft hit the market nine months ahead of Boeing's model.")
Article excerpt... ...During his time as President of the United States, Barack Obama promoted the sale of Boeing planes—including the 737 Max 8 planes—around the world.
In November 2011, in Bali, Indonesia, President Obama announced an agreement between Boeing and Lion Air.
"For the last several days I’ve been talking about how we have to make sure that we’ve got a presence in this region, that it can result directly in jobs at home," Obama said. "And what we see here—a multibillion-dollar deal between Lion Air—one of the fastest-growing airlines not just in the region, but in the world—and Boeing is going to result in over 100,000 jobs back in the United States of America, over a long period of time."
"This represents the largest deal, if I’m not mistaken, that Boeing has ever done. We are looking at over 200 planes that are going to be sold."
In September 2014, Obama met with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia at the White House.
"We’re strong trading partners," Obama said. "And most recently, Boeing has done a deal with Ethiopia, which will result in jobs here in the United States."
"I'm expecting a gold watch from Boeing at the end of my presidency because I know I’m on the list of top salesmen at Boeing," Obama said at an export forum at the White House in September 2013.......
(Excerpt) Read more at corporatecrimereporter.com ...
Like Jimma Carter,
This turd floats
to the top occasionally.
.
The Stench,
The Stench!
Bump and save
There were many “reasons” the 737 was fielded with what now appears to be a fatal flaw. Boeing has to shoulder the biggest blame and they own the internal failures created in both the design and the safety system created to mitigate the design problem.
The FAA appears to be getting far too much of the blame in public. The FAA does not have 1/100th of the engineers that Boeing does so how could they be expected to diagnose something that took the input of hundreds of people behind closed doors? The FAA should not be the patsy. The only solution would be to embed the FAA (government) within a private company (Boeing). Not acceptable unless we want to live in the world brought to life in Atlas Shrugged or Chernobyl.
It is also a stretch to blame Obama for it as Trump would have touted it also and rightfully tried to advance American industry. Could it have had some influence? Certainly. Politics taints many things within our society and one reason as advertised for the flaw in this jet is the more “environmentally friendly engines” that were too large for the aircraft creating the problem in the first place.
Just my respectfully submitted .02.
Anything based off a BS narrative is also BS.
Reporting on 737-8 Max has been gosssley falaciois. In fact, It’s beyond reasonable belief that the inaccuracy in media can be explained by J school putzism, it’s seems more likely liars for hire.
False Precepts:
MCAS is required to make the airplane controlable
Bandaid fix due to corporate greed/Schedule pressure
The pilots cant easily shut off mcas
MCAS was a secret, airlines not informed (see 2017 training mayerial at the link below)
Certification was impropper
Here’s a solid source of information
http://www.b737.org.uk/mcas.htm
My opinion: Non US Carriers have high time/low experience crew that spend the bulk of their carriers flying highly automated aircraft. When automation fails they are far less equiped to deal with the issue than guys and gals who spent their first 1500 hours flying cancled checks in questionably maintained piston twins.
” that took the input of hundreds of people behind closed doors? “
Because it is NOT behind closed doors.
The Designated Engineering Representative (DER) of the FAA is intimately involved in the process, and there are multiple of those.
I understand your point, but let’s play it out logically...
Do we have one FAA engineer for every Boeing engineer to “check their work?”
That was my point. Boeing made a plane with a flaw. They made a flawed system to correct the design flaw (engines too big). They seemingly chose to hide all of this from their consumers and make a safety system an option on the aircraft.
They got the plane approved by the FAA. Was the FAA aware of all of this and did they recognize the problem? I don’t know the answers and it is hard to trust media coverage.
I have seen many stories blaming the FAA for this. If you accept this, what is the solution? More FAA engineers?
A slippery slope FRiend.
Had the 737MAX undergone normal FAA certification procedures it would never have been certified, evidenced by the “discovery” of a new flaw.
FAA granted Boeing self-certification, essentially, and they pushed through a plane with an appalling fatal defect when piloted by poorly-trained/inexperienced crews.
FAA is mostly to blame for the crashes & deaths and Boeing corporate responsible for the remaining blame (they made the design decisions to speed certification which led directly to the flawed MCAS system) and the demise of the company for putting accounting ahead of safety in dismissing so many engineers because they viewed the company as “mature”.
See the Bloomberg article also here at FR which, frankly, outlines the real causes. When an aircraft manufacturers publicly announces that it may take software or hardware (microprocessors) to fix the problem, clearly this aircraft skipped a number of basic certification steps to meet sales goals.
Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3760301/posts
“Do we have one FAA engineer for every Boeing engineer to “check their work?””
That’s just a dumb statement. You don’t need 1:1 to check work.
You don’t know engineering or aerospace and you’re way off base on your thought process.
You do not need 1 for 1 because the vast majority of the engineering tasks are on items that are not catastrophic if they fail. It turn out that MCAS is a catastrophic system but was not certified as such. Whether this was an oversight or a devious scheme is yet to be determined
“During the certification process, the FAA delegated many evaluations to Boeing, allowing the manufacturer to review their own product.[48][49] It was widely reported that Boeing pushed to expedite approval of the 737 MAX to compete with the Airbus A320neo. That aircraft hit the market nine months ahead of Boeing’s model.”
Obama got $10,000,000 + from Boeing and was running for reelection and in charge of FAA should not have given fox keys to hen house!
You don’t need 1:1 because many hours of engineering can be reviewed in 1 hour. It is idiotic to think that someone has to stand there and watch your every move, thought, or action to provide oversight.
Valid points and I had read that article.
However, Boeing is a private company. They make a product just like every other company makes a product. They, not the FAA, are ultimately responsible for the product. They have to live with the consequences even as their failure as a company would impact all of us to some extent and I do not want to see them fail.
This is the slippery slope that leads to massive government and crushing regulation. Look what happened to the small private plane industry. There is a free market solution to this problem and we are witnessing it... fix the plane or nobody will buy or fly them. Prevent these failures in the future or nobody will buy or fly your plane.
Blaming the FAA or this President or a previous one for cheering the company is only going to lead to a much larger FAA given our past reactions where government has to solve every problem. It will have costs far beyond the moment.
Consider some examples - In response to 9/11 we created a massive new bureaucracy and grew government immensely and at great cost with the creation of Homeland Security. I am not convinced we are safer for it today.
In response to a massive hurricane called Katrina we bloated and blew up a small federal agency called FEMA who largely existed to write checks to local and state governments after a disaster into a “first responder.” We could have simply signed contracts of some kind with Walmart and other large retailers to quickly deliver supplies to those who needed it. Instead we got many new employees, trucks, warehouses, and other stuff and we have been losing money ever since when there was an easier and more effective non-government solution that would have cost pennies on the dollars.
I want a full accounting of what occurred because it impacts all of us. However, I do not want to pay far more for air travel and in federal taxes because a company screwed up. Blaming the FAA will have repercussions far beyond two plane crashes in foreign countries.
The FAA will certainly respond to the “failure” that they must have more engineers and more employees to review the work of a private company.
Boeing knew the engines were too large for the existing aircraft. They believed they could overcome this problem in the same way it has been overcome on other aircraft with similar problems like the Osprey (long list of failures and casualties) or the F-117 (had its own share of problems) - with software and computers. Given the number of hours the plane operated without a crash, they were somewhat successful even as the fatal flaw remained and eventually resulted in two disastrous failures overseas.
I don’t know the solution and I am upset at the failure. However, my assertion will continue that I don’t want a bigger government in response to a flawed system on a privately designed and sold aircraft.
That might be a solution far worse than the problem and it is a point we would all do well to remember. I provided two very good examples above and there are many more.
Instead of that gold watch, how about a pair of silver bracelets?
I am not sure you are following my thought process here. Respectfully, read my post above this one.
A few Saudi’s got on planes with box cutters on 9/11 (legal at the time by the way). We now have far more federal employees conducting essentially the same job at airports here in America and we cannot take nail clippers on to a plane. A new bureaucracy with tens of thousands of new employees at great expense to the taxpayers that has turned an inconvenience into a more tedious and time consuming process that cost far more and is of questionable effectiveness.
No, you do not need a 1:1 to check work. However, do you think the FAA will remain the same size and somehow improve the process given past history? That is how government bureaucracy usually responds in the face of an adverse result.
We will likely see a bigger FAA, more engineers, and more government oversight and regulation in response to this screw-up if recent history holds true. Our children will be on the future version of FR lamenting the size, scope, and power of government and they will talk about how it crushes the free market and aircraft manufacturers cannot get a new design approved.
There are obviously problems with MCAS. I find the lack of training and warning to pilots inexcusable in the extreme. The early stories that additional safety equipment to mitigate the MCAS problems was an “option” on the plane were especially troubling if true. Boeing really screwed up and then they tried to cover it up based on what I have seen and read.
What is the solution? Boeing will fix it or they will not sell planes. Boeing will be under immense pressure in the future to not make a similar mistake or they will not sell planes. Boeing is paying a gigantic price over this.... free market forces.
If, as this author has indirectly asserted, we are going to make a President responsible for screw-ups like this and the President’s only process to prevent such a screw-up is via a regulatory vehicle like the FAA, there will inevitably be a larger and more powerful FAA. This means more governmental control over another private industry.
A gigantic corporation based in Seattle donated money to Obama. Trump has been a cheerleader for Boeing also. I hardly think this is news on either account nor is it surprising. Obama vacuumed up cash on the West Coast like no President before him - it is a solidly progressive region of the country and I detest their politics. Boeing was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and HRC as well if memory serves.
Regardless of political donations, Boeing gets the same preferential treatment from the Trump administration because they are one of our manufacturing flagships and Trump wants them (as we all do) to succeed.
Respectfully, and I often enjoy your posts, can you not see my point here on a forum called Free Republic? I agree with you and others that the FAA did not get this one right and there are likely many reasons and influences leading to this failure.
However, I don’t think the “solution” is more government and indirectly that is what we will inevitably get out of this. Same thing has happened many times with FDA on new drugs..... they missed a few free market developed drug flaws and now it takes forever to get a new drug on the market and they cost much more.
I think many here are focused on the failure analysis and it is undeniable and multi-faceted. However, I am certain that blaming the FAA will make for a bigger FAA and more difficult FAA process that is no more effective in preventing such a rare problem in the future.
Cause and effect.
There are always political pressures on FAA regarding Boeing. The subsidies to Airbus give them a built-in advantage and that is undeniable. They represent a lot of jobs, are a major defense contractor, and it is a company that has been a source of American pride regardless of politics.
Boeing was under massive pressure to release a new aircraft to compete with an amazing plane by Airbus. No denying it. The FAA was under massive pressure to approve the plane so Boeing would not lose market share and compete. No denying that.
There is also no denying my point either - that there will now be great pressure on the FAA to become larger and even more difficult in response to being blamed for the flaws in a Boeing product that had no similar crashes here in the US despite far more hours and flights.
This problem should be addressed and aggressively on all fronts to include the FAA, but that does not mean that I want the larger FAA that will result from this. If we turn the FAA into the FDA then Boeing will have a very hard time competing regardless of what party is in power.
Boeing does not make hair dryers. “Limited government”...not zero. Public safety is entrusted to bureaucrats policed by an Inspectors General...gutted by the former president. So at its core the problem of the 737MAX could be laid squarely at 0bama’s feet.
Read my prior posts: I’ve maintained without failure that the plane would be safe in trained pilots’ hands. However, as more information has become available it has become clear that the profit culture between aircraft manufacturers, airlines and the regulating bodies are endangering the flying public...all-the-while we are placated with “statistics” demonstrating a safe mode of travel while engineering the pilots (an expense and liability) out of the equation (i.e., autonomous flight).
I reiterate that the plane would never have killed a soul had it been run through a normal flight testing program. FAA granted Boeing the ability to certify itself and greed delivered defective aircraft.
Oh, but how silly of me: Private company Boeing grounded its own planes, didn’t it? /s
I’m now convinced that if Judicial Watch was to dig deep enough, there will be evidence of the 0bama administration’s fingerprints all over the FAA’s decisions which led to the Boeing self-certification process. Again, it was his administration, after all, which emasculated the IG...
In part, as opposed to your own examples, this is more closely related to Clinton’s technology transfers to China and Uranium One than a simple greedy corporation story like Deepwater Horizon, PGE/Chromium/Brockovich and innumerous other examples of reckless corporate actions.
You wrote:
“They have to live with the consequences even as their failure as a company would impact all of us to some extent and I do not want to see them fail.”
If you believe that and your other (”They, not the FAA, are ultimately responsible for the product.”) then the 737MAX should remain grounded for a year or more, considering that they now no longer believe a simple software fix is the problem (see https://interestingengineering.com/boeing-737-max-8-likely-grounded-for-rest-of-2019-after-new-concerns-raised).
The hardware problem in the flight control system is a major flaw which endangers public safety and with the plane seeing the rest of 2019 on the tarmac, Boeing’s stock is still above its 2018 average; it should be tanking. Boeing cheated to beat out Airbus; shareholders have yet to pay the price for their actions.
Ask yourself “Why?”.
Government didn’t create the problems facing the public resulting from commercial aviation, but they certainly granted these private companies license to operate dangerously:
Kapton wiring
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm
737NG structural flaws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU
I’m not going to debate your points further: You have your opinion and I have my own.
Thanks for the reply. I had seen the Aussie video you linked previously. I had not seen the information on the flawed wiring insulation before and arc-tracking is definitely a fire concern across the appliance industry in electrical applications.
However, both of those pieces focused on something other than the problem with MCAS in the new 737.
I am not convinced that a larger more expansive FAA is the correct answer. I am always concerned when larger government is a possibility because we have to find a balance between the free-market and affordable and sustainable government.
I would like to split the baby if possible with some solution that balances safety and oversight with the free market. My whole point is not that mistakes were not made and they should not be corrected, it is a simple caution that we must make sure the “solution” does not become a problem of its own given our recent history of “more government to fix a problem” as illustrated by the examples that I provided.
Was the correct answer to explode FEMA into a first responder agency with their own trucks and warehouses of rotting food and spoiling water? That is what happened.
Was the correct answer for men getting on planes with box-cutters to reorganize and expand immigration and customs enforcement and create and federalize airport security with TSA? That is what happened.
Government has a hammer to fix problems that often require a scalpel. If the last few decades have shown us anything it is that government will create a hammer at every opportunity. Very expensive hammers that are of questionable effectiveness at fixing the original problem and often create additional problems by their own weight.
Respectfully, we would all do well to remember this. The free market and lawsuits for defective products create the best incentive of all for corporations to get things right, not a very expensive government hammer.
To be clear, I never wrote that we need a “bigger FAA”.
This is literally a case of “enforce the current laws and regulations” no different than gun and immigration laws.
If there is any merit to the claims that FAA relaxes the rules as a presidential favor, it deserves an error nvestigatin: People died, unlike “collusion”...
Sounds something like what may have
led to the cause of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
I like Juan Brown's reporting on the 737 MAX story
7
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.