Posted on 06/03/2019 10:03:03 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
A debate over safety has embroiled Boeing's 737. Today, a look at questions about its rudder that grew out of a 1991 disaster, and at the role Boeing takes in investigations.
(Excerpt) Read more at old.seattletimes.com ...
For my part, it is alarming to see that Boeing appears to have a habit of dissembling when it is involved in safety investigations.
I thought it was also pound to fit, paint to match.
Coincidentally, my son, up until recently was flying CJRs for a regional carrie. Today he started training with a new carrier to fly the 737 (not the Max).
This didn’t age well
Boeing CEO says he would put his family in a 737 Max “without any hesitation”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3753110/posts
Design to suit, cut to fit, paint to match.
People need to understand that Boeing is publicly traded.
Safety is important to them as poor safety can destroy the company. They have a financial interest in good safety.
However, the yin/yang is that some safety decisions conflict with financial decisions. Money is not limitless...even when gov’t runs things.
99%+ of all Boeing/Airbus decisions result in good safety and financial benefits.
But sometimes, those decisions are the wrong ones.
Human beings make mistakes. People die as a result. This cannot be changed by increasing gov’t or putting gov’t totally in charge because gov’t has no interest in financial prosperity nor in safeguarding lives. Gov’t only looks out for itself.
Aviation safety is incredibly good today. Free markets have ensured that.
I heard a report today that Boeing admitted they had faulty parts.
Pittsburgh was USAir 427. I was flying from the Midwest to Connecticut that day and arrived in my hotel room where I saw the news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
I have never forgotten the flight number on that one.
This I didn’t remember but she went down Hopewell Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania (Wiki).
Faulty hydraulic component - caused hard over on the rudder and she basically spiraled into the ground. No way the crew could have known what was wrong or recovered.
Was McDonnell Douglas bugless?
They claim the crew could have recovered but would have had to do so within 10 seconds (unrecoverable after that).
The ailerons can counteract a hard-over rudder. Didn’t know that.
My concern isn’t Boeing, but how easily Conservatives are fooled by the news media.
That is common. Metallurgy on the slats was out of spending cs, so they could be prone to cracking. This was for 737NG, not the 737Max.
It only made news due to the 737Max grounding, otherwise you never would have heard about it.
I would think asymmetrical power might also help but if you are close to the ground you might not have time to apply ailerons and asymmetrical power sufficient to overcome the initial hard over rudder which could have the nose headed for the ground within seconds, and you need power to bring the nose up.
The time it took to get this down on paper is time you don’t have when on final approach.
If it don't fit, don't force it - get a bigger hammer.
“Design to suit, cut to fit, paint to match.”
Touch up and Plunge too Depth.
‘Boeing CEO says he would put his family in a 737 Max “without any hesitation”’
Did he say anything about letting it leave the ground?
BOINGGGGG!!
Force it if it breaks it needed replaced anyway
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.