Boeing 737 MAX family NEWS ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59689579
Click to expand...

Highlights:
"Families of those who died in [the Ethiopian Airlines] crash ... have filed a legal motion against the US government. ... The motion, filed in a Texas District Court, accuses the US Department of Justice (DoJ) of concealing the existence of a criminal investigation into the company, and of misleading relatives of ET302 victims by denying that any such investigation existed - while at the same time working with Boeing to resolve the investigation. ... They have called on the court to rescind Boeing's immunity from prosecution."
 
I am confused to see here what could be a missreprentation of Boeing responsibilities in those dramatic crashes.
The faulty certification process, as revealed today, does not involve a flight endangering action from Boeing. You do not crash because of the presence of an unsuspected stick pusher or the lack of an optionally redundant pitot tube.
The responsibility lies in the middle ground b/w pilots decisions and Boeing failing to provide universal awareness among Max pilots. For each occurrence, Boeing's lawyers will easily refer to the dozens of known case where the stick pusher went into action without being followed by a crash.

I fear that Victim's families are led into a wall for whatever wrongful reasons their defense have.

Sad when Boeing's compensation package is remarkably over the legal standard, which, for example, in Europe, can be as low as 25k€ per victim...
 
Last edited:
To recapitulate. Boeing is responsible for selling a flawed aircraft that was initially presented as needing minimal extra training for pilots familiar with earlier 737 versions. After two crashes, with 346 dead, Boeing was forced to admit minimal extra training was not enough, modifications and lengthy testing were needed before the 737 Max was considered safe for flying again. To top it all, Boeing personnel was caught in a cover-up.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/uni...72/boeing-pay-us25-billion-over-737-max-cover
You are flogging a dead horse, tomcatvip.
 
Not so much. I stand by my words that this potential legal outcome will lead to an embarrassing precedent for pilots that will disturb any legal actions in most crash occurrence in the future.

But thanks for the summary.
 
The heart of the legal motion is that it concerns the US DoJ arranging a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), enabling Boeing to get immunity from criminal prosecution. The claimants are demanding that immunity to be rescinded. The $2.5 billion payment by Boeing was the result of a civil claim. If the current legal motion is judged to have merit, paying damages is not enough to sort out Boeing management's mess.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Not so much. I stand by my words that this potential legal outcome will lead to an embarrassing precedent for pilots that will disturb any legal actions in most crash occurrence in the future.

But thanks for the summary.
Click to expand...
Is that your way of saying pilots might no longer be prosecuted for pilot errors? I find it difficult to disentangle your message. The pilots that perished were flying flawed aircraft, after training that was billed sufficient by Boeing - training that has now been binned. I blame Boeing for that.

But this is a news only thread.
 
Well, it's more complicated than that. As hinted earlier, if Boeing can prove that routinely some pilots have experienced the same flaw and continued their flight or at last where not loosing control and that, not necessarily for their defense but a checkmate arguments, did so following what appears to be a general pattern, hence the facto, a contingency procedure, then any decision would blame the crew involved in those dramatic flights.

And again, if there are some inconsistencies b/w the general knowledge expected from a qualified pilot and their action, then the fault is aggravated.

You then have to remember:
1. that stick pusher have been in the industry since the inception of swept wings, at least outside of Nazi Germany. It's a common system part, even mentioned in any airline Pilot reference syllabus.
2. The action taken by some of the crew are counter-intuitive in term of mitigating the event, something that strongly lies in the core of their responsibilities.

There is hence, IMOHO, no path for this legal procedure aside of underlining pilots incoherences, what would de-facto minimize Boeing legal responsibility (you can not plan for what is unexpected).

That is why I was strongly in disbelief learning about victim's representation participating in this. There is no logical legal outcome that could benefit their position, aside of bringing drama into a technical debate when Boeing already owns the drama ground with such generous compensations.

It brings us to a new awkward point in this strange story after the weird blitzkrieg like media campaign at D-day+1 and the incoherent behaviors from what could only be assumed to be competent pilots judging by their flight logs...
 
And at the end, that's where we are:

"The government's investigation, however, did not produce evidence that it believed would allow it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what factors had caused the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302," it added, referring to the two fatal flights.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...7-max-families-bid-over-plea-deal-2022-02-08/
Very sad to see that victim's famililies are so badly represented that it looks as is they are... Played.
 
Last edited:
Tonight (Thursday 17 Feb) at 7:45 pm, in the UK (or at least in my region), PBS America are showing a documentary on the 737 MAX affair.
 
steelpillow said:
Tonight (Thursday 17 Feb) at 7:45 pm, in the UK (or at least in my region), PBS America are showing a documentary on the 737 MAX affair.
Click to expand...

Boeing's Fatal Flaw, it is called.
I am deeply shocked, it pulls no punches. Just one example. Boeing CEO Muellenberg is up there telling everybody that these foreign pilots did not follow their instructions (for a tailplane trim failure, which is what MCAS malfunction was passed off as). Presently an experienced US pilot takes investigators through a flight sim, following the recovered black box data step by step. When MCAS kicks in, the inexperienced copilot is heard calling to switch off the power and re-trim the elevator manually. This is exactly what the instructions said to do. Two years or so later, in the making of the film, the US pilot says, "The kid got it right", his face visibly working to hold back the tears (as is mine as I type this; it is a powerful piece of film-making). At the end, the new CEO is blaming his disgraced predecessor for all Boeing's shortcomings and, when asked about foreign v. US pilots, replying [REDACTED] - or, as the voiceover says, "You can guess". The voiceover also emphasises that Boeing has still not really admitted its culpability to itself.
One to watch if you can.
 
sublight_ said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/ne...sedgntp&cvid=a2fd2296328b4325aae4dcaf5aa7e01b
Click to expand...

o_O These are the statutory safety requirements that were imposed in the wake of the MAX 8 fiasco.


"The ... requirement would be particularly detrimental, as one of the jet’s biggest draws is that it can be flown by pilots familiar with the 737 without extra training."
Curious. On the Max 8 that sales pitch was blown out of the water by the MCAS disaster and Boeing had to pay millions in compensation to the airliners who had to retrain their pilots after all. Now the same story is being sold over its successor. True, the new extending u/c means that the MAX 8 engine position that led to MCAS *could* be undone. But the fuselage is stretched and Boeing seems not to have said whether MCAS has been fitted, modified, or removed.
 
So, Boeing is threatening to shoot itself unless they get a bye. Can the 10 and be done with it, can the max full stop. The whole thing has been blown through the roof due to Boeing safety failures and Boeing threaten to throw their toys out of the pram?
 
steelpillow said:
sublight_ said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/ne...sedgntp&cvid=a2fd2296328b4325aae4dcaf5aa7e01b
Click to expand...

o_O These are the statutory safety requirements that were imposed in the wake of the MAX 8 fiasco.


"The ... requirement would be particularly detrimental, as one of the jet’s biggest draws is that it can be flown by pilots familiar with the 737 without extra training."
Curious. On the Max 8 that sales pitch was blown out of the water by the MCAS disaster and Boeing had to pay millions in compensation to the airliners who had to retrain their pilots after all. Now the same story is being sold over its successor. True, the new extending u/c means that the MAX 8 engine position that led to MCAS *could* be undone. But the fuselage is stretched and Boeing seems not to have said whether MCAS has been fitted, modified, or removed.
Click to expand...
That MSN article is incomplete, this is not specifically about MCAS. Boeing certified the existing MAX with a holdover crew alerting system which does not meet current industry standards. This was part of their "no crew retraining" pitch, as well as cost-saving. Congress said they had until the end of 2022 if they wanted to repeat this with other MAX models, starting January 1 2023 ALL new models would need a compliant system to get FAA approval.

Boeing has an excellent, compliant system called EICAS which they use on other aircraft, but putting it on a 737 derivative would cost time and money, as well as require retaining crews to be familiar with it. Boeing's saying that this requirement will kill their business case for the aircraft, since it will cost more and have additional hurdles for customers. So they want a waiver.
 
Do the flying public not deserve consideration? With the recent evidence I would suggest folk in some powerful positons think not.
 
Just a reminder, this is a NEWS ONLY thread. Direct comparison of a new item to past news is fine. Discussing the implications is not.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Do the flying public not deserve consideration? With the recent evidence I would suggest folk in some powerful positons think not.
Click to expand...
Just playing Devil's advocate here but the public can make their views known by choosing not to fly in the aircraft.

There are currently 4,100 back orders of the aircraft waiting to be built so until the public decides en masse to not fly on them, i don't think their views will be considered sufficient to change Boeing's strategy.
 
piginapoke said:
Foo Fighter said:
Do the flying public not deserve consideration? With the recent evidence I would suggest folk in some powerful positons think not.
Click to expand...
Just playing Devil's advocate here but the public can make their views known by choosing not to fly in the aircraft.

There are currently 4,100 back orders of the aircraft waiting to be built so until the public decides en masse to not fly on them, i don't think their views will be considered sufficient to change Boeing's strategy.
Click to expand...
Not looking to side track this news thread any further but even for a devils advocate position that reasoning is pure insanity.

Strange phenomenon where some feel the need to defend the indefensible because the defensible doesn’t really suit or is inconvenient for one aircraft manufacturer or another.
 
The public have no choice on what aircraft they fly in.
 
Financial Times (ft.com) report on it:
Alaska Airlines grounds 65 Boeing Max 9s after window blows out during flight

(Registration or subscription may be required)

Alaska Airlines will ground 65 of its Boeing 737 Max jets after a section of one of its planes blew out in mid-air shortly after take-off.

The plane, a 737 Max 9, which was carrying 171 passengers and six crew, returned safely to Portland, Oregon, 35 minutes into its flight to California on Friday night.

Photos and videos shared on social media by passengers showed a portion of a side wall and a window missing and oxygen masks deployed.

Photos appeared to show a section of the fuselage, which is sometimes used as an optional exit door, torn away. Lower-cost airlines that carry more passengers often install the extra door to enable more evacuation options. The doors are permanently deactivated on Alaska Airline aircraft.

The aircraft reached an altitude of just over 16,000 feet during the flight, according to flight tracking data.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom