Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 145 of 145

Thread: 737 max 8

  1. #101

    Default

    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.”

    https://newrepublic.com/article/1534...egulate-safety
    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

    Default

    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."

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/us/bo...ots/index.html

  3. #103

    Default

    Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions Into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/b...max-crash.html

    The fatal flaws with Boeing’s 737 Max can be traced to a breakdown late in the plane’s development, when test pilots, engineers and regulators were left in the dark about a fundamental overhaul to an automated system that would ultimately play a role in two crashes.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  4. #104
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,875

    Default

    "Yet more trouble for Boeing, this time flagged up by the company itself. The plane giant told the FAA that some of the wing components in its grounded 737 Max (and in its predecessor 373 NG model) may have been improperly manufactured. All in all, the parts will need to be replaced in 133 NG and 179 Max planes around the world. CBS News "
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  5. #105

    Default

    ^I wonder if that would have made the news if it hadn't been for the Max issues? There are hundreds of thousands of parts in every passenger Jet, sometimes some of them will be defective / recalled, be it Boeing, or Airbus.

  6. #106

    Default

    Part of the problem stems from Boeing being given the right to oversee themselves by the FAA. "Cutting red tape and getting rid of regulations" and all that. They forget that the number one concern of a corporation, particularly a big one, is money. Bottom line. If they see a way to cut costs, they'll take it if they think that they can cut corners and get away with it.

  7. #107
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,875

    Default

    ^^

    it might not have made the news but it is an example of self policing and self reporting working, even during a period of time boeing knew would get extra attention. besides, with the complexities of manufacturing and construction today, without one to one full time oversight which is impossible to achieve, self policing and self reporting is integral to the overall system.

    ^

    even if the number one concern of a corporation is to make money, that doesn't preclude other issues from taking priority in either the short term or the long term. as examples, i know corporations whose policy on work-place safety trumps everything and others who will not compromise on the quality or good design of their products etc.. you could say they only do that to ensure their long term profitability but that might say more about you than them while still not negating those priorities.
    Last edited by kcantor; 04-06-2019 at 07:46 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #108

    Default

    Various other things can be important but nothing will trump making money. In all cases? No, of course not. But as a rule of thump, you won't go wrong betting on companies cutting corners on various thing including safety. Repairs are put off. People are told to do things "just this once" without proper safety measures. They'll find ways to fire people, such as pregnant women, in order to save a few bucks.

    Volkswagen and the falsified emissions tests. Takata and the faulty airbags. Chevrolet and the faulty ignition switch responsible for at least 13 deaths. And that's just a tiny fraction in the automotive sector.

    Then you've got the various TFW's taken advantage by employers. Vicky Venancio, who was injured when she was hit by a car while riding her bike. Severed nerves in her spine. And Jason Kenney, then Immigration minister wanted to deport her.

    Sure, "Safety is job one" makes a nice slogan but it's unlikely to be a primary concern ahead of money.

  9. #109
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Various other things can be important but nothing will trump making money. In all cases? No, of course not. But as a rule of thump...

    ...
    Sure, "Safety is job one" makes a nice slogan but it's unlikely to be a primary concern ahead of money.
    i guess the rules of thumbs in our worlds are just different then - which makes me glad i live in my world and not yours.

    "safety is job one" might make a nice slogan but where it counts - in the field - it isn't a slogan, it's a way of life because it's the difference between going home and not.

    and i've been on lots of sites with lots of companies for whom it is indeed a primary concern ahead of money every day.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Various other things can be important but nothing will trump making money. In all cases? No, of course not. But as a rule of thump...

    ...
    Sure, "Safety is job one" makes a nice slogan but it's unlikely to be a primary concern ahead of money.
    i guess the rules of thumbs in our worlds are just different then - which makes me glad i live in my world and not yours.

    "safety is job one" might make a nice slogan but where it counts - in the field - it isn't a slogan, it's a way of life because it's the difference between going home and not.

    and i've been on lots of sites with lots of companies for whom it is indeed a primary concern ahead of money every day.
    I know in the oil and gas industry, the company that consistently has the best record, even though it makes plenty of money, is Exxon. That's not a fluke, they have a significantly better safety record than many other oil and gas companies, its something they have lived by for a long time now. It is all driven by culture / leadership.

  11. #111

    Default

    consistent...



    Exxon Valdez spill




    Environment Tyler Hayden FRI, MAY 24, 2019
    Inspection Reports Detail Corrosion, Leaks on Exxon Platforms
    But the Federal Safety Agency in Charge Doesn’t Seem Concerned
    https://www.independent.com/2019/05/...orms%E2%80%A8/

    Federal inspection and accident reports acquired by a Bay Area environmental group reveal that ExxonMobil’s three Santa Barbara Channel platforms were cited for corrosion and leakage problems around the time they were shut down by the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill. The findings were announced May 6 by the Center for Biological Diversity amid Exxon’s highly contentious bid to restart the platforms and truck oil to inland refineries.

    Officials who visited Platform Hondo in the spring and summer of 2015 found “numerous corrosion issues,” a “number of components out of compliance,” and “leakage rates higher than the maximum allowable,” the reports show. Platform Heritage was found to have both electrical and corrosion problems “throughout.” One accident report describes an incident on Platform Harmony in which a crate full of pipeline inspection devices — called “pigs” — broke open and tumbled into the ocean. In two separate cases, workers slipped on spilled hydraulic fluid, injuring their backs.


    Though Exxon’s equipment was not responsible for the Refugio spill, environmentalists argue it’s still part of the same dangerous and outdated infrastructure. “ExxonMobil’s decrepit drilling platforms need to be decommissioned, not brought back to life like Frankenstein’s monster,” said Kristen Monsell, the Center’s ocean legal director, in a press statement. “At a moment when we should be weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, these offshore drilling platforms should be among the first to go.” In a strange coincidence, Heritage workers mustered in their recreation room during an emergency gas release on the platform at 10:30 a.m. on May 19, 2015, the exact same time oil was spilling out of the broken Refugio pipeline ​— ​though the two incidents were not related.

    Judge approves $1M Exxon settlement over Montana spill
    Jun 4, 2019 Updated 45 min ago


    HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A judge has approved an agreement calling for Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay $1.05 million to settle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claims of pollution violations over a 2011 oil pipeline break in Montana's Yellowstone River.


    U.S. District Judge Susan Watters accepted the consent decree Monday after a 30-day public comment period.


    The deal resolves the last outstanding federal enforcement case against Exxon over the accident that spilled 63,000 gallons (238,474 liters) of crude oil in the river.
    https://www.theeagle.com/news/nation...8bd6e1a88.html
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 04-06-2019 at 03:48 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  12. #112

    Default

    ^how many Exxon employees were hurt in either incident? For the size of the company, they do remarkably well on that metric, far better than say, BP.

  13. #113

    Default

    That is not the point, now is it?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #114

    Default

    ^the point is you can have a strong safety culture, and still make money. Boeing seems to have made some very bad choices with the technology they introduced in the Max, and its cost them a lot of money / hasn't saved them any.

  15. #115
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    The point is, you can't make much money if you're fined and sanctioned in to bankruptcy or receivership because of your past actions. Regulatory decay or capture is a problem in many industries in the US currently, for sure. But trying to draw a straight line between profit and safety is silly. They aren't mutually exclusive.

    How much profit was being made at Chernobyl, exactly? Weird that a social and economic system that basically banned profits still managed to create one of the worst environmental and economic catastrophes of all time. It's almost like blaming it all on profits is incredibly short sighted and simple minded.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 04-06-2019 at 04:38 PM.

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    How much profit was being made at Chernobyl, exactly? Weird that a social and economic system that basically banned profits still managed to create one of the worst environmental and economic catastrophes of all time. It's almost like blaming it all on profits is incredibly short sighted and simple minded.
    I wonder how much its the system in Chernobyl (which was brutally bureaucratic) versus the basic inherent flaws in a technology that is reliant on massive amounts of engineered parts working in sync in a complex system. A similar accident happened at three mile island (albeit the containment system was stronger), and later at Fukushima under capitalism. Aircraft makers face some of the same problems given how many parts and design aspects are in any aircraft.


    Lessons learned[edit]

    The Three Mile Island accident inspired Charles Perrow's Normal Accident Theory, in which an accident occurs, resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex system. TMI was an example of this type of accident because it was "unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable."[99]

    Perrow concluded that the failure at Three Mile Island was a consequence of the system's immense complexity. Such modern high-risk systems, he realized, were prone to failures however well they were managed. It was inevitable that they would eventually suffer what he termed a 'normal accident'. Therefore, he suggested, we might do better to contemplate a radical redesign, or if that was not possible, to abandon such technology entirely.[100]

    "Normal" accidents, or system accidents, are so-called by Perrow because such accidents are inevitable in extremely complex systems. Given the characteristic of the system involved, multiple failures which interact with each other will occur, despite efforts to avoid them.[101] Events which appear trivial initially cascade and multiply unpredictably, creating a much larger catastrophic event.[102]

    Normal Accidents contributed key concepts to a set of intellectual developments in the 1980s that revolutionized the conception of safety and risk. It made the case for examining technological failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures. Technological disasters could no longer be ascribed to isolated equipment malfunction, operator error or acts of God.[100]


  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^the point is you can have a strong safety culture, and still make money. Boeing seems to have made some very bad choices with the technology they introduced in the Max, and its cost them a lot of money / hasn't saved them any.
    Boeing has an outstanding safety record, one of the best in the world.

    Boeing has built 10,478 737's and only two crashed due to this issue.
    They also built 1,548, 747's, to a total of over 25,000 civilian aircraft.

    On the military side, the B-17, B-29, B-47, B-52, AH-46, CH-47 F-15, F-18, C-17, are just a short list of over 100,000 aircraft Boeing has built. Some of the most historic planes ever built.

    But some think that Boeing puts only profits first and does not care about quality at all.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #118

    Default

    ^there is an interesting NYTimes article on the Max, basically saying they pushed old tech too far with the goal of minimizing the need to retrain pilots.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/b...-737-max-.html


    Pilots start some new Boeing planes by turning a knob and flipping two switches.

    The Boeing 737 Max, the newest passenger jet on the market, works differently. Pilots follow roughly the same seven steps used on the first 737 nearly 52 years ago: Shut off the cabin’s air-conditioning, redirect the air flow, switch on the engine, start the flow of fuel, revert the air flow, turn back on the air conditioning, and turn on a generator.

    The 737 Max is a legacy of its past, built on decades-old systems, many that date back to the original version. The strategy, to keep updating the plane rather than starting from scratch, offered competitive advantages. Pilots were comfortable flying it, while airlines didn’t have to invest in costly new training for their pilots and mechanics. For Boeing, it was also faster and cheaper to redesign and recertify than starting anew.

    But the strategy has now left the company in crisis, following two deadly crashes in less than five months. The Max stretched the 737 design, creating a patchwork plane that left pilots without some safety features that could be important in a crisis — ones that have been offered for years on other planes. It is the only modern Boeing jet without an electronic alert system that explains what is malfunctioning and how to resolve it. Instead pilots have to check a manual.
    Last edited by downtownone; 04-06-2019 at 05:11 PM.

  19. #119
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    ^the point is you can have a strong safety culture, and still make money. Boeing seems to have made some very bad choices with the technology they introduced in the Max, and its cost them a lot of money / hasn't saved them any.
    Boeing has an outstanding safety record, one of the best in the world.

    Boeing has built 10,478 737's and only two crashed due to this issue.
    They also built 1,548, 747's, to a total of over 25,000 civilian aircraft.

    On the military side, the B-17, B-29, B-47, B-52, AH-46, CH-47 F-15, F-18, C-17, are just a short list of over 100,000 aircraft Boeing has built. Some of the most historic planes ever built.

    But some think that Boeing puts only profits first and does not care about quality at all.
    one of the problems with statistics...

    the 737 max had been in service less than two years when 2 of the 393 planes in total that had been brought into service in that time crashed (and those were not the only two planes that reportedly had identical issues).

    so, while i happen to agree that boeing has historically cared deeply about quality and did not historically only put profits first, that still wasn't enough to ensure something wasn't broken somewhere when it came to the max and relying solely on historical statistics to identify it would only have postponed both discovery and correction of whatever was wrong.

    when it comes to failures, the emphasis needs to be on the failure, not the successes (the best example possibly being the challenger's O-rings).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  20. #120

    Default

    Challenger's o-rings failed because Mission Control approved a launch at on an unusually cold morning, with temperatures below freezing.

    The Shuttle was never certified to operate in temperatures that low and the O-rings were only qualified to 4°C. The O-rings, as well as many other critical components, had no test data to support any expectation of a successful launch in such conditions.

    Prior to launch, the shuttle and tanks were covered in ice as the low ambient temperature and super cooling from venting LOX tanks indicated external tank temperatures as low as −13 °C


    The temperature on the day of the launch was far lower than had been the case with previous launches: below freezing at −2.2°C; previously, the coldest launch had been at 12°C.

    As in both cases, it was a management failure that overridden the advice of engineers, safety and quality assurance personnel.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #121
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,875

    Default

    ^

    no, they weren't the same management failure, or at least they weren't after the first failure.

    as with the challenger, there should have been no subsequent failures of the max until the cause of the first one had been identified and corrected. it should have grounded after the first failure which likely would have prevented both crashes.
    Last edited by kcantor; 04-06-2019 at 06:58 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #122

    Default

    One was watched by millions of people as it exploded over the United States.

    The other was not witnessed by anyone and happened on the otherside of the globe.

    Two entirely different responses.


    It should be noted, there was a second shuttle disaster that had been warned could happen and it did.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #123
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,875

    Default

    ^

    i think yet again we will have to agree to disagree.

    corporate culture and ethos in areas like this has nothing to do with audience size or even regulatory oversight.

    this is about "the right stuff" and individually, corporately, and politically (elected or administrative), you either have it or you don't. and having it has less to do with being perfect all the time as it does in how you deal with things when they're not.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  24. #124

    Default

    I agree that we disagree

    Corporate culture and ethos in areas like this has nothing everything to do with audience size or even regulatory oversight.

    Just look at the changes in the US after the 45th President was elected.

    Companies change simply because a new CEO takes the reins. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. Either way, quality and safety is affected.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    Boeing has built 10,478 737's and only two crashed due to this issue.
    They also built 1,548, 747's, to a total of over 25,000 civilian aircraft.
    Of course, claiming that the only 737s to crash are the two recent 737 Maxs is not correct.


    The following is a list of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 family of jet airliners, including the Boeing 737 Original (737-100/200), Boeing 737 Classic (737-300/-400/-500), Boeing 737 Next Generation (737-600/-700/-800/-900) and Boeing 737 Max (737-MAX -7/-8/-200/-9/-10) series of aircraft.


    The 737 series is the best-selling commercial jetliner in history, with the first unit having first entered airline service in February 1968[1] and the 10,000th unit entering service in March 2018.[2] The first accident involving a 737 was on July 19, 1970, when a 737-200 was damaged beyond repair during an aborted takeoff, with no fatalities; the first fatal accident occurred on December 8, 1972, when United Airlines Flight 553 crashed while attempting to land, with 45 (43 onboard plus 2 on the ground) fatalities; and, as of June 2019, the largest loss of life was an accident on October 29, 2018, when Lion Air Flight 610, a 737 MAX 8, crashed into the Java Sea shortly after takeoff, with 189 fatalities. The most recent crash was on May 3, 2019, when Miami Air Flight 293 skidded off the runway and crashed into the St. John river.


    Several accidents of the original and Classic series 737's were due to a design flaw in a power control unit (PCU) causing uncommanded rudder movement under thermal shock: see Boeing 737 rudder issues for further info.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_Boeing_737
    Due to this issue, sure, you're correct. But there's been lots of other issues.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Various other things can be important but nothing will trump making money. In all cases? No, of course not. But as a rule of thump...

    ...
    Sure, "Safety is job one" makes a nice slogan but it's unlikely to be a primary concern ahead of money.
    i guess the rules of thumbs in our worlds are just different then - which makes me glad i live in my world and not yours.

    "safety is job one" might make a nice slogan but where it counts - in the field - it isn't a slogan, it's a way of life because it's the difference between going home and not.

    and i've been on lots of sites with lots of companies for whom it is indeed a primary concern ahead of money every day.
    I know in the oil and gas industry, the company that consistently has the best record, even though it makes plenty of money, is Exxon. That's not a fluke, they have a significantly better safety record than many other oil and gas companies, its something they have lived by for a long time now. It is all driven by culture / leadership.
    Cutting corners and attempting to put profits ahead of all else is not just about safety.


    Exxon Mobil Fined $21 Million For Violating Clean Air Act 16,386 Times

    Conservation groups Environment Texas and the Sierra Club sued Exxon in 2010, saying the energy giant failed to implement technology that would curb emissions at its Baytown, Texas complex between 2005 and 2013. The groups said Exxon gained more than $14 million in economic benefits during the delay and flouted provisions of the Clean Air Act.


    U.S. District Judge David Hittner agreed, finding Exxon illegally released more than 10 million pounds of pollutants, including carcinogens and respiratory irritants like sulfur dioxide. In total, the court found Exxon had violated the Clean Air Act 16,386 times, with each violation carrying a fine of up to $37,500 per day.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...b0af6d718b82f2
    There's also the subsidiaries to consider.

    Parent Company Name: Exxon Mobil
    Ownership Structure: publicly traded (ticker symbol XOM)
    Headquartered in: Texas
    Major Industry: oil and gas
    Specific Industry: oil & gas
    Penalty total since 2000: $1,036,968,797
    Number of records: 366



    https://violationtracker.goodjobsfir...nt/exxon-mobil

  27. #127

    Default

    Why companies are willing to risk fines. Instead of making $1 billion off of it, they'll just make $984.6 million. That'll learn 'em!

    Drug Company to Pay Just $15.4 Million Over Doctor Bribery Scandal Involving Medicine That Brings in $1 Billion a Year

    Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals announced today that the company expects to pay $15.4 million in a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department after allegations that Questcor Pharmaceuticals, which Mallinckrodt acquired in 2014, had bribed doctors and their staff to prescribe an incredibly expensive drug.


    Two whistleblowers came forward in April to accuse Questcor of trying to boost profits for Acthar, a medication primarily for infants with seizures. Questcor raised the price of the medication by roughly 100,000 percent (not a typo) from just $40 in 2000 to over $40,000 today, despite the fact that Acthar has been on the market since 1952. Mallinckrodt currently rakes in about $1 billion per year from Acthar, according to CNN.

    https://gizmodo.com/drug-company-to-...rib-1835274587

  28. #128

    Default

    ^ that is how the accounts and shareholders want it.

    GM knew about their ignition switch issues for a decade but did the cost analysis and determined that they would save more money paying out death claims than the cents per car saved.

    At least 97 people died as a result.
    The GM recall scandal of 2014
    https://www.vox.com/2014/10/3/18073458/gm-car-recall

    GM is recalling 1.6 million older model vehicles to repair switches that could be accidently turned off if they are jostled or attached to a heavy key ring. When the switch turns off, the car loses power brakes and steering, and its air bags are disabled.

    GM is under scrutiny because it knew about the deadly ignition-switch problem for more than a decade before issuing its initial recall. Early on, the company had proposed redesigning the ignition switch or adding an insert to address the problem but later decided against it, according to documents the company filed with federal safety regulators.


    The company has apologized repeatedly for the delay in issuing a recall, saying it struggled to pinpoint the problem.


    The slow recall has also put the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under fire for not detecting the problem and ordering a recall. NHTSA has said that it, too, struggled to find the problem despite opening three special probes of accidents linked to the flawed switch.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.7ccc5b355d2e
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 05-06-2019 at 02:56 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  29. #129

    Default

    And $225 million is peanuts compared to the profits they made. So you jack up the price by 1/2 of 1% to cover any potential fines and carry on as usual. Maybe things would be different if the executives faced jail time instead of having the company pay some fines. But that's crazy talk. Executives aren't responsible.

    Opioid Maker Insys Admits To Bribing Doctors, Agrees To Pay $225 Million Settlement

    Insys Therapeutics, an opioid manufacturer, has agreed to pay $225 million to settle the federal government's criminal and civil investigations into the company's marketing practices. As part of the settlement, Insys Therapeutics admitted to bribing doctors to prescribe their opioid painkiller.


    Last month, a federal jury in Boston found five top Insys Therapeutics executives guilty of racketeering conspiracy for these same practices. Now, the federal government is holding the company accountable.


    In the agreement, the drug maker admitted to orchestrating a nationwide scheme in which they set up a sham "speaker program." Participating doctors were not paid to give speeches, but to write prescriptions of Insys Therapeutics' fentanyl-based medication, Subsys. Often the painkiller was prescribed to patients who did not need it.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/05/73017...jH2yrUqIz5h5Vk

  30. #130

    Default

    And when you don't bother to tell the few regulators that you are dealing with what you're doing and don't bother to tell the pilots about it...

    Delta CEO Calls Boeing 737 Max Problems a 'One Off' Despite Two Deadly Crashes on Other Airlines

    “The reporting that’s coming out shows a lot of corner cutting, trying to get things more automated, all kinds of things. It doesn’t show a great picture of technological innovation that’s going on in airlines. And maybe I’m misreading a lot of these stories...” Swisher said.


    But Swisher wasn’t misreading anything. The New York Times investigation from June 1 was particularly damning for Boeing and the FAA. As just one example from the scathing report:


    The company also played down the scope of the system to regulators. Boeing never disclosed the revamp of MCAS to Federal Aviation Administration officials involved in determining pilot training needs, according to three agency officials. When Boeing asked to remove the description of the system from the pilot’s manual, the F.A.A. agreed. As a result, most Max pilots did not know about the software until after the first crash, in October.

    And it gets so much worse if you read the entire article.

    https://gizmodo.com/delta-ceo-calls-...spi-1835438893

  31. #131

    Default

    It's all about the Benjamins

    Head of pilots' union says Boeing's efforts to save customers money contributed to 737 Max crashes

    WASHINGTON — Boeing’s efforts to save its customers money contributed to the “fatal mistake” of failing to give pilots the crucial information and training they needed to safely fly 737 Max jets, according to the president of a union representing 15,000 American Airlines pilots.


    “Unfortunately, as pilots know, improvements in aviation are often written in the blood of the unfortunate victims of airplane accidents,” Captain Daniel Carey said in remarks prepared for a hearing Wednesday before the House aviation subcommittee.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...f-pilots-union

  32. #132
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,199
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    https://globalnews.ca/news/5404414/b...-max-sale/amp/

    Boeing to sell 200 of its 737 MAX jets in first deal since grounding
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,793

    Default

    Can you imagine the discount they got. IAG just purchased some airbus products as well including the A321xlr so for them to switch midstream is quite amazing.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  34. #134

    Default

    Yeah, a buy two and get a spare for free...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #135
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,793

    Default

    Aerials of 737 MAX planes parked at Boeing Field, Renton factory
    https://youtu.be/46InmJexzYg
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  36. #136

    Default

    Another flaw discovered.

    A new flaw has been discovered in the computer system for the Boeing 737 Max that could push the plane downward, according to two sources familiar with the testing, an issue that is expected to further delay the aircraft's return to service.


    A series of simulator flights to test new software developed by Boeing revealed the flaw, according to one of the sources.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/polit...law/index.html

  37. #137

    Default

    Yeah, Boeing is totally trustworthy. Profits before people is their mantra.

    Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak

    Boeing staff falsified records for a 787 jet built for Air Canada which developed a fuel leak ten months into service in 2015.

    In a statement to CBC News, Boeing said it self-disclosed the problem to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration after Air Canada notified them of the fuel leak.

    The records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not.

    ---

    In 2015, Boeing paid the FAA $12 million US to settle ongoing investigations. As a part of the five-year agreement, Boeing agreed to work with the agency to address safety oversight issues within the company.


    That agreement details an "obscure program" that delegates some safety checks to Boeing itself, said Michael Laris, a Washington Post reporter who has looked into many of Boeing's safety issues that prompted the agreement with the FAA.

    After the devastating 737 Max crashes, Laris said questions are being raised about the effectiveness of Boeing's oversight program.


    "Just how much authority should be delegated to the company? Just how independent are the Boeing employees and their managers?"



    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boe...leak-1.5193550
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 28-06-2019 at 04:56 AM.

  38. #138

    Default

    Don't worry, the President has their back. Less regulations and the mantra of deny everything.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #139

    Default

    Related to the Air Canada fuel link or something more?

    DOJ probe expands beyond Boeing 737 MAX, includes 787 Dreamliner

    Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records from Boeing relating to the production of the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, where there have been allegations of shoddy work, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.


    The subpoena was issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the sources said. DOJ is also conducting a criminal investigation into the certification and design of the 737 MAX after two deadly crashes of that jetliner.


    The 787 subpoena significantly widens the scope of the DOJ’s scrutiny of safety issues at Boeing.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...liner-records/

  40. #140

    Default

    Saving money trumps saving lives.

    Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers

    The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.


    Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.


    In offices across from Seattle’s Boeing Field, recent college graduates employed by the Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. occupied several rows of desks, said Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer who worked in a flight-test group that supported the Max.


    The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”

    Boeing’s cultivation of Indian companies appeared to pay other dividends. In recent years, it has won several orders for Indian military and commercial aircraft, such as a $22 billion one in January 2017 to supply SpiceJet Ltd. That order included 100 737-Max 8 jets and represented Boeing’s largest order ever from an Indian airline, a coup in a country dominated by Airbus.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...EYjQ8kBO8OzUdE

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Sully making remarks echoed by my father and many others in the industry for some time...

    Inadequate training and rushing unqualified people into the cockpit
    ... This is a huge issue for the industry as a whole.
    Watched an episode of a tv series called Mayday. The episode was called: Deadly Go Around. Very interesting. Poor training. Training on a mismatched simulator, different automation that other planes, poorly rolled out corrections...


    Mayday | Discovery Canada | Watch Full Episodes | Discovery

    China Airlines flight 140 falls out of the sky at Japans Nagoya Airport.

    http://www.discovery.ca/Shows/Mayday/Video



    China Airlines Flight 140 - Wikipedia

    ...
    See also
    Edit

    China Airlines Flight 676, another crash involving a CAL Airbus A300 during the 1990s, which also occurred on final approach.
    Aeroflot Flight 593, another plane crash that occurred the previous month and was partially caused by the pilots failing to understand the plane's systems.
    Delta Air Lines Flight 723, another plane crash caused by inadvertently switching the aircraft into a Go-Around mode on final approach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_140


    This may be the same thing under a different label:


    Air Disasters: Deadly Go Round | Smithsonian Channel
    https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/s...nd/802/3467451
    Last edited by KC; 12-07-2019 at 10:19 PM.

  42. #142

    Default

    More fallout from Boeing being penny wise and pound (and lives) foolish.

    United Airlines Announces Extended Flight Cancellations Due to Grounded Boeing 737 Max

    Flight cancellations continue as the Boeing 737 Max remains grounded pending an ongoing review of its software update, with United Airlines on Friday announcing yet another schedule revision.


    A spokesperson said the airline’s latest cancellations will extend through Nov. 3, adding that the changes will affect dozens of flights per day. The changes will impact approximately 2,100 flights during the month of September and roughly 2,900 flights in October alone, the airline said.

    https://gizmodo.com/united-airlines-...ons-1836328498

  43. #143

    Default

    How's that cutting corners on the 737 MAX working out for you?

    Boeing considers pausing production of troubled 737 Max jets
    CEO Dennis Muilenburg made the announcement after Boeing's revenue plunged 35%


    Boeing's CEO says the company will consider temporarily shutting down production of the 737 Max if the plane's return is significantly delayed beyond the company's October forecast.


    The comment by chairman-CEO Dennis Muilenburg underscores the uncertainty swirling around the company and its bestselling plane, which has been grounded since March after two deadly crashes.


    Boeing reported Wednesday that it suffered its biggest quarterly loss in at least two decades, nearly $3 billion US, as it absorbed financial damage caused by the Max. Revenue plunged 35 per cent after Boeing halted deliveries of any new Max jets.


    The huge second-quarter loss was expected. Boeing removed much of the suspense from earnings day when it announced last week that it would take a $4.9 billion after-tax charge for the Max. The charge was calculated from Boeing's estimate of the cost of compensating airlines for lost use of their Max planes for several months. It did not include Boeing's potential liability from dozens of lawsuits filed by relatives of the 346 passengers who died in the two crashes.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/boe...-ceo-1.5224489

  44. #144

    Default

    Impractical. Yeah, tell that to the dead people. All that darn red tape just gets in the way of profits.

    FAA Reportedly Delegated Oversight of Critical 737 Max Flight System to Boeing

    In another example provided by the paper, FAA engineers concluded that the plane’s upgraded engines could pose a risk to cables controlling the rudder if they disintegrated in midair. The FAA acknowledged in a subsequent investigation that the Max “does not meet” its standards “for protecting flight controls,” the Times wrote, but sided with Boeing in 2015 that it would be “impractical at this late point in the program” to compel a change.


    In a 2017 report, the paper added, an FAA panel investigating complaints about the issue concluded that Boeing had created “an environment of mistrust that hampers the ability of the agency to work effectively” and that the company had a “vested interest in minimizing costs and schedule impact.”


    Additionally, a two-decade veteran of the FAA who was a leading advocate of delegating authority to manufacturers, Ali Bahrami, left the agency in 2013 to take a lobbying role at the Aerospace Industries Association trade group where he urged “maximum use of delegation” to Congress. He returned to the FAA in 2017 as the head of safety, the Times noted.

    https://gizmodo.com/faa-reportedly-d...max-1836761865

  45. #145

    Default

    Interesting and frightening read.

    A BOEING CODE LEAK EXPOSES SECURITY FLAWS DEEP IN A 787'S GUTS

    “LATE ONE NIGHT last September, security researcher Ruben Santamarta sat in his home office in Madrid and partook in some creative googling, searching for technical documents related to his years-long obsession: the cybersecurity of airplanes. He was surprised to discover a fully unprotected server on Boeing's network, seemingly full of code designed to run on the company's giant 737 and 787 passenger jets, left publicly accessible and open to anyone who found it. So he downloaded everything he could see.


    Now, nearly a year later, Santamarta claims that leaked code has led him to something unprecedented: security flaws in one of the 787 Dreamliner's components, deep in the plane's multi-tiered network. He suggests that for a hacker, exploiting those bugs could represent one step in a multi*stage attack that starts in the plane’s in-flight entertainment system and extends to highly protected, safety-critical systems like flight controls and sensors.”

    https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-7...197s8rsY1Kd9y8

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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