Impeach Boeing
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-09-27 10:34 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 189 references Ignore this thread
Impeach Boeing*
[Comments enabled]


MONTREAL (Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao warned regulators on Wednesday against sending conflicting messages as they work to ensure Boeing Co’s 737 MAX is safe to resume operations.

Boeing’s best-selling jet was grounded globally in March, days after the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight that followed a similar Lion Air disaster in Indonesia in October. The two crashes took 346 lives.

“International coordination is important in all aspects of this process,” said Chao. “The traveling public will not be well served if there are conflicting signals given by different regulatory authorities around the world.”

Heh Chao -- go suck an egg.

The facts are that the aircraft is dynamically unstable to a degree that was not anticipated during the design process. It is dynamically unstable to this degree because of decisions made by Boeing.  Rather than extend the landing gear so as to allow the much larger engines to fit under the wing and not impact the CG materially they instead extended the pylons forward and up to allow the cowlings to clear.  This moved the thrust moment forward and up.

The calculations that Boeing did on this at the time of design said that a small automated compensation for this in their flight control software was sufficient.  Flight testing disclosed their calculations were wrong; they needed four times as much "corrective action" as their projections.

That should been the end of that aircraft design right there -- or at least a much more rigorous analysis, including FAA involvement.

In an honest, transparent system of certification Boeing could not have hidden this from the FAA and from pilots -- but they did.  They would have likely been forced to either go back and redesign the landing gear to get the clearance to put the engines under the wings as with the former models or redesigned the wings and fuselage attachment points so as to not have that CG impact.  Or any one of a number of other changes (e.g. mitigating the potential fault to either make it not happen or give the pilots a decent "out" if it did), including documentation and training on same.

But any of that would have cost money and jeopardized the "wink-wink-nod-nod" deal Boeing had with carriers, specifically Southwest, to not do that sort of thing as a bid to reduce airline training costs.  So Boeing didn't do that.  They instead continued to move forward, gamed the certification system and ultimately got clearance to fly the thing with passengers in it and, using that corruption in the US Government, effectively side-stepped a full review by foreign governments too.

There are over 300 people who are dead.

No "software" fix can address this.  Nor can software fix the inability to operate the manual trim wheels under some flight conditions, thus removing the critical backup requirement for said "automated" control in the event it goes insane -- which it did, twice, with people on board.

Why it went insane (single sensor input) isn't the point.  The point is that once it went insane it was physically impossible to turn it off and then manually override what it had done.  The record shows that the pilots in at least one of those aircraft did attempt exactly that according to the checklist and further, one of the aircraft on the flight prior to its crash had a similar problem that the pilot was able to compensate for because another pilot was in the jump seat and able to assist.  In the former case the aircraft was not immediately grounded; had it been the people who were on the next flight would still be alive.

It is my considered position that the 737MAX should never fly again and that Boeing has intentionally continued to produce said aircraft during the grounding as a means of attempting to force the FAA to allow it back into the air.

Effectively, Boeing is attempting to extort the US Government's regulatory system by placing itself in the position of being bankrupt should the government refuse to re-certify the aircraft on purpose.

People want to talk about Trump?

How do we impeach a corporation?

PS: Could the aircraft once again fly under some other moniker and under a different type certificate?  Maybe.  Show me an airworthy aircraft that can operate safely at the original 0.6 degree MCAS authority limit and with the previous-version stabilizer cut-off switch arrangement (allowing computer disconnect from the stabilizer trim separate from main power to same) that also passes FAA and international (proved this time by those authorities independently, not asserted by Boeing) certification testing -- which of course comes as a different aircraft type complete with all the training requirements that are associated with same.  That's reasonable.  But nothing less is.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info Impeach Boeing in forum [Market-Ticker] *
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ