Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Boeing 737 exposee

(1/4) > >>

holt:
'problems with Boeing 737 next generation with structural dangers reported SBS​ dateline Australia'

This is NOT the recent 'software programming' issue; this is a whole different, long-overdue, mind-blowing exposee of shabby workmanship coverup and whistleblower betrayal at the highest levels of Boeing in cozy illicit collusion with a corrupt FAA.

holt:
"lThere may be old Boeing passengers, and there may be bold Boeing passengers, but there are no old, bold Boeing passengers."

holt:
Another whistle-blower exposee, reporting shabby workmanship, about a completely different airliner, also manufactured by Boeing, the company whose aircraft never crash, they just go 'boeing-boeing':
Boeing 787 Broken Dreams
"Our journalism reveals the deeply-held safety concerns of current and former Boeing engineers, who in some cases fear to fly on the 787, the plane they build. We uncover allegations of on-the-job drug use, quality control problems and poor workmanship."

holt:
Boeing 737 Max Unsafe To Fly, New Scathing Report By Pilot, Software Designer

IainB:
@holt: Thanks for that video and subsequent posts. Very informative.   :Thmbsup:
I happened to be on a project conference call meeting with several people from different countries last night, discussing a software development project. One of the people happened to have been a highly qualified aeronautical engineer and a systems lead designer (software control systems) at Boeing.
At the end of the conference call, when just he and I were left on the line discussing the meeting minutes I was to write and distribute, I took the opportunity to ask him, "Bearing in mind recent aircraft accident reports, if I was going to go on an international flight very soon, what Boeing aircraft should I avoid travelling on?, and straight back came the reply "Statistically, the 737 MAX and MAX 8" and he mentioned that the nomenclature seems to be changing, possibly to hide the pea. I asked him to explain.
In a nutshell, he said that:

* (a) Statistically, safety was clearly at risk: the reported accidents indicated ab initio a relatively high probability that these aircraft were unsafe, something which no potential passenger should ignore, as a matter of self-preservation and preservation of their family members and colleagues - so, for safety, it would be rational and prudent to boycott all services using those risky aircraft, on that basis alone. That was why they had been grounded.


* (b) Statistically, the accidents were predictable anyway - as night follows day, because the FAA standards and expertise had been emasculated or watered down to such an extent that the FAA inspectorate now deliberately concealed or ignored risks (also QED per the video above). He said this had reduced the emphasis on minimum safety and quality control standards and was probably largely attributable to cost-cutting within Boeing and Boeing's increasing control over the FAA (compromising the FAA's independence), and that the rot seems to have set in and become endemic within Boeing, due to policy decisions - as made by and following the appointment of an ex GE executive to the position of CEO at Boeing (and who apparently had earned himself the nickname "Chainsaw Mc-someone", or something). Those policy decisions were apparently largely focused on cost-tutting and short-term enhancement of shareholder profit, so the guy would presumably have "just been following orders" (sounds somehow familiar?) and getting well paid for it to boot.


* (c) The cost-cutting measures included the reduction of costs of engineers. Generally speaking, aeronautical engineers are more highly paid the more highly-qualified and experienced they are, because they are the brains that design the aircraft and its systems, which keeps those aircraft in the air and flying safely over their working lives (and I was evidently talking to one of these people over the phone). However, the cost-cutting measures apparently included - wherever possible - laying off approx. the highest-paid two-thirds of the more expensive engineers in any sector of engineering, "leaving Boeing with the bottom turd." - which was not to say that they weren't any good, just that they were much less qualified and experienced than those laid off. This would essentially have meant that they were less competent, by definition. 


* (d) There was a revolving door operating between Boeing and the FAA - with the remaining bottom turd engineers moving into the FAA for cushy and highly-paid jobs. Thus, the incompetent watchmen were overseeing the "standards" being maintained by their incompetent colleagues in their work. What could possibly go wrong in such a scenario? Well, the answer to that is presumably what we now are allowed to read about in the news, and it includes deaths on quite a large scale.


* (e) But isn't it the aircraft that are at fault? Yeah, right. Just like it's the gun's fault whenever there's a mass shooting at some college or other place in the US. Oh, wait...
Some people (not me, you understand) might say that, the amazing thing is the whistleblowers' testimonies in the video, and from this guy I was talking to on the phone, which would imply very strongly that, either they are a pack of liars, or there is/was government and corporate collusion here and which has inevitably led to hundreds of people being already killed and countless more being put at risk of death through these "unfortunate" aircraft accidents, but I couldn't possibly comment. I mean, no government would do that, surely?  :o
I mean, it would be like turning a blind eye and doing nothing to (say) stop the mass importation of Fentanyl from China even though it might have been causing 6,000 deaths per three months in the US already. Oh, but wait...

That looks like one sick puppy you have there...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page