Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 102 of 102

Thread: 737 max 8

  1. #101


    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    And it's not just Boeing that's getting into the self-inspection game.

    It’s Not Just Pork: Trump Is Also Letting Nuclear Plants Regulate Their Own Safety

    The draft version of the rule, released by the NRC in 2016, required all nuclear plant owners to do two things: reassess all flood and earthquake risks, then implement new safety measures taking the reassessment into account. But in January 2019, with Trump appointees making up a majority of the commission, it approved a final version of the rule making the safety measures voluntary. Nuclear power plants, in other words, will still have to do new risk assessments—but now they can choose whether they want to prepare for those risks or not.

    The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.”

    The Trump administration also has been pushing to reinstate self-regulation of offshore oil rigs, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to a government crackdown. “After the 2010 blowout, the Obama administration ... required well operators to hire independent third parties to conduct safety checks,” NPR reported this week. “Now, the Trump administration is trying to roll that regulation back.”
    I'd imagine that that there's a number of people that would like to see the O&G sector do more self-regulation here.
    I have several years experience in designing and manufacturing temperature sensors and hardware for Candu nuclear reactors and dealing with our company's Quality Control and Quality Assurance as well as the QA/QC of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Ontario Hydro, Quebec Hydro as well as QA certifications by CSA and QMI, the thought of 'self-assessments' is a total joke. In fact, as a manufacturer, we discovered significant product faults with our AECL certified suppliers who were far larger and well known companies, and even found design and testing errors by AECL and Ontario Hydro. I personally questioned the AECL design specifications that contained violations of their own standards and were not based upon sound engineering practices. As a manufacturer, I openly challenged our customer's standards and the procedures used by the nuclear plant operators. I was told that they understood my concerns but "that was the way things were done". We made our own internal changes to improve the design and quality beyond the specifications.

    In other words, it is important that everyone is focused on quality and push back on even your suppliers and customers to improve safety and reliability. In the Boeing case, not only did customers such as Air Canada have to push back and demand more information, the uprated redundant safety systems and that Boeing train the pilots on how to shut off the MCAS system. Boeing needs to improve as well as the FAA and self certification needs to be eliminated to responsible and accrediable third party inspections, certifications and quality assurance.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #102


    Boeing more concerned with bottom line than passenger safety.

    Audio reveals pilots angrily confronting Boeing about 737 Max feature before second deadly crash

    The meeting between the pilots and Boeing happened in November -- just weeks after an October crash of a Lion Air 737 Max into the Java Sea, and four months before a 737 Max operated by Ethiopian Air crashed in Ethiopia.

    On the audio, a Boeing official is heard telling pilots that software changes were coming, perhaps in as little as six weeks, but that the company didn't want to hurry the process.
    The pilots indicated they weren't aware of the 737 Max's computerized stability program -- the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS.

    "We flat out deserve to know what is on our airplanes," a pilot is heard saying.

    "I don't disagree," the unidentified Boeing official answers.

    "These guys didn't even know the damn system was on the airplane," a pilot says, seemingly referring to the Lion Air pilots. "Nor did anybody else."

    "I don't know that understanding this system would have changed the outcome of this," the Boeing official says. "In a million miles you're going to maybe fly this airplane, and maybe once you're going to see this ever."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts