mudcat.org: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Boeing Boing Gone

robomatic 14 Mar 19 - 01:45 PM
Joe Offer 14 Mar 19 - 02:37 PM
Mrrzy 14 Mar 19 - 02:51 PM
Donuel 14 Mar 19 - 04:01 PM
robomatic 14 Mar 19 - 08:51 PM
JennieG 16 Mar 19 - 12:44 AM
Mrrzy 16 Mar 19 - 10:42 AM
Mrrzy 17 Mar 19 - 01:57 PM
Bonnie Shaljean 17 Mar 19 - 02:40 PM
DaveRo 17 Mar 19 - 02:46 PM
Joe Offer 17 Mar 19 - 08:27 PM
Joe Offer 17 Mar 19 - 08:32 PM
robomatic 17 Mar 19 - 09:28 PM
Joe Offer 17 Mar 19 - 09:49 PM
Donuel 18 Mar 19 - 06:35 AM
robomatic 19 Mar 19 - 01:56 AM
Mr Red 19 Mar 19 - 04:19 AM
Donuel 19 Mar 19 - 09:10 AM
Donuel 19 Mar 19 - 09:19 AM
Jack Campin 19 Mar 19 - 11:48 AM
robomatic 20 Mar 19 - 12:19 AM
Jon Freeman 20 Mar 19 - 01:12 AM
robomatic 20 Mar 19 - 02:04 AM
Jon Freeman 20 Mar 19 - 02:15 AM
David Carter (UK) 20 Mar 19 - 04:09 AM
Mrrzy 20 Mar 19 - 10:29 AM
robomatic 20 Mar 19 - 10:52 AM
Jon Freeman 20 Mar 19 - 01:00 PM
Donuel 21 Mar 19 - 05:58 AM
robomatic 22 Mar 19 - 07:09 PM
Donuel 23 Mar 19 - 07:32 AM
robomatic 24 Mar 19 - 05:30 PM
Donuel 24 Mar 19 - 07:14 PM
robomatic 26 Mar 19 - 10:27 PM
Donuel 27 Mar 19 - 09:46 AM
robomatic 27 Mar 19 - 11:57 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:




Subject: BS: BOEING BOING GONE
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Mar 19 - 01:45 PM

I heard Donald Trump say something right, and that was that Boeing 737 MAX 8s got to be grounded. I was surprised and disappointed that the NTSB hadn't already done it and I supposed it was because the President had told them not to.

The loss of one brand new aircraft due to designed-in-control behavior is already really really bad. That this happens again is horrific. This is not the first time that Boeing has screwed up big-time with their aircraft, but it is a sign of something rotten.

I hasten to add that in general I have a very positive feeling about Boeing aircraft. Alaska Airlines flies only 737s and they are the most iconic civilian transport aircraft of this period. They are quite simply the DC3s of the jet age. Deservedly so.

I expect more of the manufacturer, Boeing.

I have not forgotten the recent crash of a Boeing 767 which augured in just when it was expected to land. This crash got less publicity than it deserved because it was a cargo plane. Although it is unlikely to be caused by the same thing, I am paying attention to the news on the investigation in case it turns out that software was involved.

Now, stuff like this has happened to very good aircraft in the past. DC3s had some stupid accidents when they were new. The 727 had some as well. But I am afraid that in this case Boeing executives and maybe engineers took some short cuts they should not have.

Their products are still the best out there, but these accidents should not have happened.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Mar 19 - 02:37 PM

Hi, Robomatic,

I like your reference to the 737-200, which carried parcels, livestock, and passengers all over Alaska. I think it was the last passenger aircraft built with hydraulic controls. Later planes have been "fly-by-wire." Back in about 2002, I got a ride out of Palmer in a small plane with a friend of a friend, Alaska Airlines Capt. Rex Gray, who flew a 737-200 "mud hen" in the state for 35 years.

Rex also tried his hand at radio. Here's his Alaska Public Radio tribute on the retirement of the 737-200:
Wikipedia says the 737 has been continuously manufactured since 1967. It is the best-selling jetliner in history, with over 10,000 aircraft produced.

My stepson was about 11 when we flew with Rex, and Rex let him take the controls. The following Christmas, my stepson got a present from Rex - some flight charts and a pilot's log, with two hours logged for that first flight. My stepson is now 29 and has logged hundreds of hours of flight. He's now a flight instructor, building up hours so he can become an airline pilot.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Mar 19 - 02:51 PM

Remember Airbus' maiden flight?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Mar 19 - 04:01 PM

its just a software and firmware problem.
FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS!      that they knew about.
If they let the cat out of the bag, then they would have had to pay for new training world wide

they tried to save a $$$


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: BOEING BOING GONE
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Mar 19 - 08:51 PM

Joe:

Very cool:

Some 737-200 memories: The jets, to supply the (Alaska) interior with goods and people, had a cargo section up front; a bulkhead in the middle behind which passengers sat in the rear. Out on the engines were solid metal pipe-like channels mounted from the lower lip of the jet engine intakes. They were about an inch and a half in diameter and three feet long. They fed pressurized air from the engine compressors to a downward spray of air to keep pebbles and loose gravel from getting sucked into the engines on the unimproved strips at St. Mary's and Aniak.

I was in the back passenger sections of one of these shortly after the unhappy* incident where a 737 in Hawaii had lost not just cabin pressure but a substantial piece of cabin roof. As we were taxiing out the young male attendant was briefing us on the seatbelts and emergency oxygen and some wiseacre asked "what do we do when the roof comes off?" and the kid immediately stuck out a foot and said: "Velcro sneakers!"



*The attendant had been sucked out of the plane and lost, the belted passengers all survived.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: JennieG
Date: 16 Mar 19 - 12:44 AM

Anyone else remember a song - could be from the 60s? or early 70s - sung by Roger Miller "Boeing Boeing"? "Going, going, skywardly heavenly"......

I could google it, but I'm feeling lazy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Mar 19 - 10:42 AM

I remember Aloha Airlines. That copilot had ice in her veins. Great piloting, getting that plane down.

The nose of this latest flight was set on Dive, I read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 01:57 PM

Hey, you pilots, would turning the autopilot off help, or was it not yet on?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 02:40 PM

Alaska Airlines was my go-to transport between Seattle & San Francisco, back in the day. I totally second what Robo said. I took a small harp (without a case, for some reason) on there once. The crew never even blinked (I suppose they'd seen everything by that time), just showed me a nifty little stow-hole behind the last row of seats where it fitted perfectly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: DaveRo
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 02:46 PM

I was taken to see a play called Boeing-Boeing in the '60s. Starred Patrick Cargill.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 08:27 PM

The technology behind the problem is interesting. To save the cost of building an entirely new airliner, Boeing took the tried-and-true 737 and updated it. It's amazing to me that they can take such an old design and still make it do wonderful things. Boeing added bigger engines, and that changed the center of gravity on the aircraft and made the nose tend to tip upward. Boeing then did a software design to make the plane stay level - but that made the plane perform unusually in some circumstances.

I've ridden the 737-800 and 737-900, and they were a lot more comfortable than the earlier 737s. I don't think I've been on a MAX. I think the MAX will prove to be an excellent aircraft once the glitches are ironed out - I just hope no more lives are lost before that happens.

Here's an interesting article:


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 08:32 PM

Another thing that's amazing to me, is how long airplanes last. My kid is flying Cessnas built in the 1970s every day, and he thinks of them as fairly new. Some of the planes he flies are from the 1950s. But he thinks his (my) 2006 Honda Civic is too old....
I'm going to have to raise his rent. He's getting away with $600 a month for car, insurance, food, and housing - and whatever else his mother buys for him.
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 09:28 PM

One argument is that the realities of physics regarding air resistance and lift haven't changed, hence aerodynamic designs haven't been updated much. There are some legendary airplanes which date from the 30s, such as the Monocoupe, whose performance within horsepower limits have not been improved upon. On the other hand, there are new developments such as electrically powered airplanes, that could in theory increase efficiency and performance 'envelopes'.
However, many of the new changes involve increased complexity. One of the oldest improvements was variable pitch propellors. These have been around since the 30s but they cost money require maintenance, and I believe that each one has its own log book. Small airplane engines are built first for reliability, second for lightness, hence they have not changed much in sixty years. Any change for efficiency probably requires electricity, whereas an existing small engine will run by itself with no battery. It gets its spark from dual magnetos.

The commercial aircraft world has long since taken the complexity plunge, ergo the autopilots, dual energy sources, backup systems, etc. But that world was originally an analog world, and the electronics and pneumatics and hydraulics that made things work were inherently built and understood in a more intuitive way. You can visualize the routes and connections of various tubes and hoses and get an idea of what's going on, sort of like looking at an animal skeleton and following the tendons and ligaments. There were certainly 'black boxes' in the analog control world, but they were far simpler than the new digital world. This is not only true of aircraft, but of the industrial world in general. When you go digital you have to think differently, and a whole host of issues open up that were not there before.

Consider your car's automatic speed control. When they first appeared in the higher end vehicles in the 50s and 60s, they were analog- pneumatically controlled. You set them for a speed, and they maintained that speed as a minimum. But if you headed downhill, your car's speed went up. The automatic controller was there to do a single thing, not protect you from a speeding ticket. Today's car takes a precise speed setting and monitors it with far greater precision, if you go over the speed limit, it can hit the brakes for you and stay right on target. But every part of that control has to be designed in by a programmer.

In the analog days you decided when your headlights went on. Today there is a standard setting in my Chevy which I leave on and the car puts on the headlights for me. But, as happened with a friend, he took his car in for service and someone in the shop turned his lights full off. Until he figured out what was happening he was driving around with no lights at all, and unaware of it because the street lights in town do a good illumination job. And I have seen cars in town with no lights on and quite possibly unaware of it.

The situation is far more complex and ingrained with large commercial aircraft, and there is no doubt in my mind that aviation company %ies are well aware of it. What a button means now can be variable. If you push it multiple times, does it go on/off; function a function b function a recycle; function a, function b function c etc? Or even a new function depending on the situation?

I've talked with a cargo pilot who described that not understanding how the computer 'thinks' you can get in trouble, and this does happen in real flying situations.

99+ percent of the time this sophistication makes aviation more reliable and safe, but I believe that Boeing got sucked into some bad design decisions and is now facing the consequences. I trust that they will study the causes and learn from them, but I also think these two 737 MAX crashes were avoidable and are a crying shame.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 19 - 09:49 PM

Robomatic, I didn't know you knew all this stuff. This is fun! Are you a pilot yourself? Or the stepfather of a pilot, like I am?

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Mar 19 - 06:35 AM

The 737 is practically a sports car of the sky. I've been in 60 degree banks and quick landings aboard 737s.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Mar 19 - 01:56 AM

I have a VFR license which I got in high school, have not pursued it although I have an airplane 'up on blocks' in my yard.

Read a good deal about aviation and planes. Particularly many books by Robert Serling. Robert Serling specialized in the history of various aircraft and commercial aviation. And his brother was well known for a TV show.


He told lots of good tales: The DC3 was a big hit when it came out in the 30s. It was an enlarged, sleeper version of the DC2, and as a transport plane during WWII it outclassed the German Junkers 52 which the Germans were quite fond of. But, every so often, a DC3 would augur in and leave only bits so no one knew what the problem was. But it was not grounded. Then one night, in turbulence, a pilot tried to hang up his microphone on the wall hook, and it fell down the control well, which was a wedge shaped opening in the floor through which the control column went in order to link the control yoke to the ailerons and elevators. The controls were wedged solidly forward, and the pilot managed to extricate the mike in time to regain control. A leather boot was then installed over all the DC3 controls and no more auguring in.

Robert Serling lived a lot longer than his brother. His last book was about the early history of Alaska Airlines.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Mar 19 - 04:19 AM

About 10 years ago I worked at Smith Industries (now GE) on aircraft displays and such. What they told me about fly-by-wire was that the wire was not similar but exactly a LAN. Two parallel ones. Not sure how the two were arbitrated, but if they didn't show the same command they must have throw-up a warning. The hardware was pure LAN, the data packet protocol was not yer regular TCP/IP though, so maybe there is more error checking, handshaking etc.

The big effort at the time was stuff for the 787 dreamliner. One thing that came back to us was that they were having problems with volt drops because there was so much carbon fibre and less aluminium. The structure was the "ground", and using electrical controls probably meant higher currents than older aircraft too.

An example of how things can go wrong in such a simple process is:
A meeting was called and sent through e-mails though some people heard verbally. The GE takeover had mandated that the e-mail service (security?) was ported through Cincinatti. Which normally worked fine despite the change.
UNTIL daylight saving time or to be more precise the gap between the UK change date and the US one! I turned up only to be told the reason for cancellation.

WELL who'dathoughtit!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 19 - 09:10 AM

I have flown aboard passenger DC3s and barfed in my hat.
There were tornado warnings that day.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 19 - 09:19 AM

The previous passenger in my seat was so bored they had practiced their stitching, sealing the barf bag closed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Mar 19 - 11:48 AM

Alaska Airlines was my go-to transport between Seattle & San Francisco, back in the day. I totally second what Robo said. I took a small harp (without a case, for some reason) on there once

That could be rather alarming for other passengers who thought you knew something they didn't. Did anybody rummage through their carry-on bag to look for their white nightshirt?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 12:19 AM

Mr. Red:

I was thinking of you when the subject of fly-by-wire came up, but I can't imagine it would ever be done via a network. I've worked in industrial electrical field (no aviation background) but in the industrial world they kept away from networks until about thirty years ago. And by networks I'm talking digital buses. From the point of view of anyone in the computer/ communications field what was being done was primitive, but considering the consequences of damage or miscommunication or error the cost difference between dedicated electrical controls and anything like a bus was minor. One of my earlier projects involved an early bus system which was put in by some very bright people in our company, but the maintenance people in the industrial areas (our clients) eventually tore it all out and put in the system they were familiar with. For the past twenty years there have been many industrial buses out there.

According to wikipedia the electrical fly-by-wire
system is basically doing electrically what the hydraulics and cables used to do physically.

I was talking to a pilot yesterday about this issue and he said and he was specifically talking Boeing that as an example of fly-by-wire dynamics there were two trim systems. One was directly controlled by the pilot and the other was controlled by the autopilot. Large aircraft have sophisticated control systems and they act automatically to protect the plane and the pilot has to be aware of them and able to shut them off and this is typically worked into the checklist. There are cases where taking off of a rough strip can cause enough of a jostle to trip a microswitch and make the system think there is a problem on takeoff. A trained pilot is aware of all this stuff (normally).

While not aeronautical, a case I'm personally familiar with is installing a big transfer switch. A transfer switch is where you have more than one potential electrical source and you want to power a hospital from only one at a time. The regular source is the regular power system, but if the power system fails, you want to switch to a back-up system, and that is where the switch comes in. You can have a big physical massive switch just like a humongous wall switch. That would be like the regular heavy duty aircraft controls. You can also install a set of interlocked breakers which will do the same exact thing, only it is managed through wires. Works like a charm and maybe even faster and it can be easier to wire up and install but you HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Which is what is being done on the modern airliners.

By the way Charles Sullenberger, the pilot of the 'miracle' landing on the Hudson River, came out criticizing FAA and Boeing today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 01:12 AM

Not a subject I've a clue on but aircraft do use buses. CAN (which I've at least heard of in relation to cars) and various ARINC things have cropped up in searches.I've nothad much joy finding what's used where in my brief look though.

But perhaps this may be of interest. For a Boing 777. It looks to me as if everything goes through ARINC 629 data buses but maybe I'm misinterpreting things and I'm no electronics engineer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 02:04 AM

Way cool! Goes on my bedtime reading list! Did you find it with a search or are you in the technical biz by way of such systems?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 02:15 AM

Search. The most I am an occasional hobby type programmer/ even rarer dabbler with the microprocessors like PIC and Arduino. Somewhere along that line I came across (but have never used) the CAN bus and found out about its automotive use so that and aviation was my starting point. That led me to ARINC and a subsequent search for something like "Fly By Wire ARINC" turned that up in the results.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 04:09 AM

CAN (Controlled Area Network) is 1980s, although it is still used a lot in cars. I am familiar with its use in controlling large telescopes (the ones I used also being 1980s).

Airbus seem to use a different strategy for back up of flight control systems, having a fallback which is electrical but not electronic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 10:29 AM

Anybody read Airframe by Crichton?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 10:52 AM

Jon: Thanks. That article looks pretty interesting in giving an overview of the thinking that went into FBW (Fly-By-Wire). There's always more than one way to skin a cat so I'm not surprised David Carter that Airbus has a difference. But it points out that each type of plane will have its own system, hence users, in this case Pilots, Co-Pilots and Flight Engineers (if indeed, flight engineers still exist) will get indoctrinated into the system they fly with. Clearly, part of the problem that got Boeing into its current mess was their desire to take a very successful airplane designed in the 1960s into the new era with a minimum of retraining. But they clearly over-reached. In fairness I think they thought they cold do this safely and unfortunately it turned out they did not succeed. They have to bear considerable responsibility.

I have not read Airframe but I will get it on my reading list. I'll probably print out the document Jon found and alternate Crichton's work with the FBW paper, which looks like fun.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 20 Mar 19 - 01:00 PM

Both CAN and ARINC date back to the 1980s. In terms of only looking at automotive and aviation, it looks as if they have been pretty much confined to their original target industry. But Airbus did use CAN (or an adaption of it) for certain systems in the A380.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 19 - 05:58 AM

Meanwhile back in DC the first director of the Trump FAA has been appointed.
This administrtion left the FAA under the direction of acting directors with connections to Boeing for the last 2 years.
Steve Dickenson the new Director used to head up Delta


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Mar 19 - 07:09 PM

The additional stories coming out combined with the revelation that Boeing had a safety upgrade available for a price, a pitifully low price compared to the price of the overall plane, have actually depressed me.

While not exactly on a par with the VW scandal of the past few years, this is an example of a corporation falling down on their principles and practices in just as major a way.

I think the CEO of Boeing needs to go. And probably some other high deciders.

Major Malfunction!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Mar 19 - 07:32 AM

The current policy of Deregulation has obviously shown the world that it has no place in aviation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 19 - 05:30 PM

The New York Times is, for me, one of the best sources anywhere for news of journalistic quality in the pre-internet use of the word 'journalism'. This article came out today, and I hope most of you can access it through the link. Sometimes the NYTimes paywall may be a problem. While I do not question the facts or the quotes in the article, I think it may give a more critical take on the Boeing 737 Max program than necessary, mainly through the article's title.

Basically I think Boeing and some of its managers are guilty of some poor decisions regarding the MCAS control system and their attitude toward making a safety upgrade an 'optional' add-on for the 737 Max8. I don't think the entire 737 project was a bad poorly executed program. I don't think the NY Times article really says that, but some of its headings imply it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 19 - 07:14 PM

Actions always have unintended consequences. When reporting facts it is only fair to allude to the unintended. Admittedly this is a balancing act but the take away headings are fair.

For Boeing to be conscientious enough to foresee every possible outcome for every decision they make is an impossibly high bar, but that is what we ideally hope for. Changing regulatory policy for a more internal industry review does not help the flying public.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Mar 19 - 10:27 PM

This is the latest article, again from the New York Times, to make me very concerned over what is happening to Boeing which led to this issue and these two crashes.

There had also been a nagging concern in my mind ever since the issue of the software control came up:
As I understand it, the software control was an additional piece of hardware AND software, with an additional set of switches to turn off the system which the pilots in the crashes did not know about. Apparently the day before
the earlier crash (in Indonesia), the jet had had the same exact problem but a pilot in the jump seat had been aware of it and rescued the plane and pilots. The next day, none of those pilots were in the same plane when the same problem led to its destruction.

The problem is twofold: The extra control system with the lack of training and documentation, and the lack of reporting on the part of the folks who had a major control problem. Did they not pass this on to their mates?

It reminds me of driving across borders in the U.S. Northeast in winter. If the snow removal trucks only cleared the road on their side of the border (I'm thinking Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts here), you could lose control of your vehicle on the bit in the middle that they mutually felt no responsibility for. If they bothered to clear the middle border part, there was no problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Mar 19 - 09:46 AM

Boeing engineering has allowed design hazards to exist for want of a single washer to lead to puncture of the fuel tank. Ironically it was the fix that caused multiple fuel leaks. Without the input of more intuitive minds there will be more 'unexpected' disasters'.
Being on the predictive side of the intuitive fence I have seen the prejudice against my side first hand. Elon Musk has gone a long way to correct this with great success.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing Boing Gone
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 19 - 11:57 AM

Is this what you are referring to Don'l?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 27 May 6:23 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.