FAA issues emergency directive on 2,000 Boeing 737 NG, Classic planes

They can regain respect by building new good products. Or by admitting mistakes, surely not by laying blame on the pilots.

I am less forgiving. If you want to forgive them, that's your choice.

Mostly obtained by acquisitions.

In current production only the 737, 747, 777 and 787 and T-7 originate solely from Boeing.

787 - Historically over budget and delayed. Failed static wing deflection test, showing how much we can trust the FEA work. In cockpit battery fires led to a historic worldwide grounding of Boeing commercial aircraft. A NTSB report blamed (in part) Boeing engineers for not considering worst case scenario for a lithium battery in a cockpit compartment that contained no fire suppression system. A grounding like the one OP linked is not unprecedented, it is of the 'the plane is grounded until it passes an inspection' type. The battery fire issue led to a 'all planes are grounded until Boeing has a fix.' I believe that this is the first time that Boeing had an aircraft grounded in this way. I believe it was 3 months for Boeing to have an FAA approved fix. Incidentally the 'fix' was a heavy duty sheet metal box around the battery, with a vent to outside the aircraft. I suppose time will tell how reliable a fix this is. Finally there have been issues with debris being left in fuel tanks, metal shavings in wire bundles, etc. Allegedly in aircraft delivered to customers.

737 MAX - A half-baked software bodge has left hundreds dead and all these aircraft grounded worldwide. This is the second time Boeing had a commercial aircraft grounded worldwide with no end in sight. As with the 787 there are issues with debris being found in "complete" aircraft, with foreign object material being found in fuel tanks AFTER the aircraft has left assembly and passed inspection.

KC-46A (Air Force Refueling Tanker) - Years late, over a $1B over budget. Egg on face issues like not having the (required) FAA approval for fuel pods and drogue system. Repeated issues where Air Force refused delivery because of... debris in fuel tanks.

Starliner Crew Capsule - multiple critical software errors that meant the capsule never docked with the ISS and was nearly lost.

There are some common threads here. Bad software for 737 MAX and Dreamliner. Foreign object material ending up in wings and fuel tanks over and over.

Finally there is good reading to be had about quality issues in assembly, parts being rejected as defective and then "disappearing." Whistleblowers are reporting that the "disappeared" defective parts such as tail assemblies are ending up on aircraft and being delivered to customers. It seems there is pressure from management to sacrifice safety for profit, pressure to approve designs (thanks to some really good lobbying, Boeing essentially gets to approve its own designs with minimal FAA oversight), pressure to keep you mouth shut about safety concerns (and retaliation if you don't).

These are not signs of a healthy company. By now I think that Boeing has slid into "all-around shitty." The above is my best recollection of news stories from years of watching Boeing, if I have made a mistake then I am happy for any corrections. Let me know if you would like links to any of the particular stories or believe that a [citation needed] is in order.

No I do not. I still wouldn't ever refer to Boeing as well-respected nowadays. Granted, it may be irrational quirk of mine.

To clarify, do I respect Boeing? Yes. But I would not make a post on the Internet and write out "well-respected". I understand Boeing's cultural shift from being an engineering-first company and its MAX fiasco would not warrant "well-respected" in many people's eyes nowadays.

Was Boeing well-respected in the past? Yes. Is Boeing well-respected nowadays? Yes. But to deliberately write it out to me feels like trolling and stoking fire. You surely must understand that a lot of people lost a bit of respect for Boeing in recent years.

I think the issue here is the lack of flight-hours. These parts were designed and specified for an in-use plane, not one that sits around.

An airplane is an extremely expensive asset and they are typically almost constantly in service. It's very rare for one to be idled for months at a time.

Believe it or not, that's actually a lot of the idea that drives commercial aviation design.

Or used to anyway.

Despite what we see on the web more and more, this principle applies to code too.

It shouldn't be about stacking up layers of complexity for no good reason.

The numbers of sets of comically bent out of shape feeler gauges I've encountered in my life demonstrates that there's a bunch of folks out there who don't understand how they're supposed to be used. As in "maybe if I just push harder this'll fit" :)

This idea again. I don't know why people are saying this. It's not true. Aviation you're allowed to use any tool you want unless the workshop manual says to use a specific tool.

OEM calibration certs are useless to an aviation company because it's someone else promising accuracy that could see you thrown in jail if it's wrong. Before tooling is used the first time it will be calibrated. Then calibrated again at set intervals.

>hex torque drivers with cal stickers

It's most likely the part had stickers so it was in their system for visual inspection for good condition. I have a pair of lockwire pliers that were pulled from the shop floor due to them being indicated worn during a visual inspection. I still have them 7 years later and they're still the sharpest pliers I own.

As for the traceability from birth, this applies to parts that go on the aircraft not tooling. Tooling traceability you need to know what tool was used if it's required to be calibrated. ie torque wrenches.

Model 15 and 19 Teletypes are not hard to work on. Everything comes apart easily; it's all screws and lockwashers. They're human scale; it's not like building surface mount electronics or repairing an iPhone, where you work under a microscope. The adjustments aren't that finicky, except for a few near the selector magnet. It also helps that the whole thing is unidirectional - there's a straightforward path from input signal to typebar hitting the paper, and you can work through problems in order. As a nice feature, movement is powered in one direction and spring-loaded in the other, so if something gets stuck, it's just stuck in the operated position and doesn't get bent or broken.

Aircraft are built like that. Some parts require careful adjustment, but there's almost always an easy way to check that you got it right. Because, after all, you can't fix it in flight.

Mechanical design has a design philosophy embedded in it. If you work on complex mechanical systems, you can sometimes get a feel for how the original designer thought. Good machinery design is not a common skill. All the good Teletypes were designed by only two people - Howard Krum and Ed Kleinschmidt.

Very few people study this any more in the US, which hurts when you need to design production machinery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

A deadstick landing,is a type of forced landing when an aircraft loses all of its propulsive power and is forced to land. The "stick" does not refer to the flight controls, but to the traditional wooden propeller, which without power would just be a "dead stick".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing

The Qantas A380 from Singapore to Sidney that had an uncontained engine failure was repaired and entered service again, at an estimated cost of about $150m, or about 1/3 of the price of a new one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32

And bleed air is indeed always taken in the compressor, never in the turbine. First there's no point taking it later than the compressor, you just want compressed air. And it's ultimately used to ventilate the cabin, you don't want fuel vapors or smell.