Boeing whistleblower shoots himself dead

[Johnny Yesno]

Here's a short two-part documentary covering some of the history buzby discussed upthread and some recent developments:

Boeing's Downfall [Greed Over Safety] feat. Mentour Pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgTcb8DqfY

The Boeing Scandal Just Got A LOT Worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a32RLgqNfGs

[Sonny_Jim]

Known as the "pilot's airplane." Magnificent machine the 777.  Had the pleasure of flying club world on a BA 777-300ER recently.  Some way to travel. 

Wouldn't touch RyanAir with a bargepole.

You know this place turned into PPRuNe so slowly I didn't even notice.

[jamiefairlie]

Unforgivable that when their planes crash they don't just bounce back up with that comedy "Booooeeiingggg" noise (best exemplified by the "forgot the axe" scene in Christmas Vacation).

Massive fail from their PR/Marketing/Infeasible Materials departments there I reckon.

[touchingcloth]

Boeing lands without panel in Oregon (a different plane to the one that took off from Oregon before losing a panel) and a separate incident to the comedy chair one.

They're doing this deliberately now, aren't they?

[Blumf]

In fairness, the plane is 25 years old, so that looks like old age + lax maintenance, rather than Boeing at fault.



Looks grubby as fuck. Get the sponge out United!

[bgmnts]

Aye you wouldn't get pissed off at [insert car manufacturer here] because your 25 year old [insert car here]'s wheel rim fell off, hitting a child in the face.

[touchingcloth]

Aye you wouldn't get pissed off at [insert car manufacturer here] because your 25 year old [insert car here]'s wheel rim fell off, hitting a child in the face.

Try me.

[buzby]

Boring have just catapulted a load of passengers into the ceiling

The Wall Street Journal reported that a flight attendant accidentally hit a switch on the pilot's seat, which pushed the pilot into the controls, forcing down the plane's nose.

As it turns out, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault after all. The pilot and copilot's seats have a rocker switch on the back of them to move them forwards and backwards so they can get into the seats. The switch is covered by a panel to prevent it being pressed accidentally.

In the incident aircraft, the switch cap had apparently come loose, which mean that if anyone put their hand on the cover it would press on the switch to move the seat forwards (and it would not stop until it reached the end of the track or the cover was opened).

Boeing have had to send out an urgent technical bulletin to all 787 operators to remind them to check the seat switches, as apparently this has been an issue since 2017 when a bulletin was issued about the rocker switch caps which recommended gluing caps that had come loose back onto the switches.

[touchingcloth]

As it turns out, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault after all. The pilot and copilot's seats have a rocker switch on the back of them to move them forwards and backwards so they can get into the seats. The switch is covered by a panel to prevent it being pressed accidentally.

In the incident aircraft, the switch cap had apparently come loose, which mean that if anyone put their hand on the cover it would press on the switch to move the seat forwards (and it would not stop until it reached the end of the track or the cover was opened).

Boeing have had to send out an urgent technical bulletin to all 787 operators to remind them to check the seat switches, as apparently this has been an issue since 2017 when a bulletin was issued about the rocker switch caps which recommended gluing caps that had come loose back onto the switches.

For some reason I had imagined the attendant had stood on the switch rather than pressed it with their hand. Watching that video it doesn't look like it moves quickly fast enough to make a sudden jerk to the plane, and you'd think that someone who leaned on it accidentally would remove their hand reflexively once the seat and the button they were pressing started moving away.

It seems like bad design, though. If a pilot wants to adjust the position of their seat, they have to contort themselves to press a button behind their headrest? Even the passengers get to adjust their seats with a button on the armrest.

[BlodwynPig]

RyanAir have never had a fatal crash, but they have had many lucky escapes, again mostly due to pilot and maintenance errors (and occasionally manufacturing errors). They are all documented of you feel like looking yourself.

2 instances (in 2007 and 2017) of losing nosewheels on takeoff or landing, both of which were due to cracked axles caused by improper maintenance procedures.

Last month at Charleroi they had another nosegear incident, where the torsion link (the scissor link that stops the suspension strut rotating) had detached causing the nose leg to rotate 90 degrees on touchdown, destroying one of the wheels. The retaining bolt and pin from the torsion link were later found on the runway in Rome where the aircraft had departed from.

In July 2011 FR-1703 suffered a rapid decompression at 30000ft over the Swiss Alps after a replacement Cabin Pressure Controller had been fitted with the shipping plug still in place on the static port (which measures the cabin pressure). This was despite the cabin pressure control system supposedly having dual redundancy.

They have multiple instances of flap sensor failures each year leading to high-speed flapless landings (there were 6 reported instances last year, the most recent being in November).

Of the incidents that were not pilot or maintenance errors, the following stand out:

In April 2011, FR-9503 lost all instruments and electrical systems on takeoff from Stockholm, caused by a short circuit between the main electrical buses finding a bug in the logic of the Generator Control Unit firmware which then took both generators offline.

In July 2018, FR-7312 underwent a rapid decompression at 37000ft due to a 'Single Event Upset' (Boeing terminology for a untracable hardware bug) in the Cabin Pressure Controller opening the cabin air outflow valve. Despite having two CPCs, the error in one was enough to activate the valve (just as in the July 2011 incident), rendering the system redundancy pointless. Boeing said that the probability of the event reoccuring was so small it was not worth trying to find the bug in the CPC.

In October 2018, FR-6606 had a one of it's laser gyroscopes fail over the Bay Of Biscay which started outputting erroneous position data that led to unreliable airspeed, attitude and altitude indications on the LCD instrument panel and caused the autopilot to commence an uncommanded climb and almost stall the aircraft. There were no instructions in the pilot checklists on how to change over the instrument and system data feeds to the second laser gyro, so they had to fly the remainder of the flight to Edinburgh manually using the standby instruments and manual trim, though the yaw damper system was still taking data from the faulty gyro and making uncommanded rudder inputs.

In January 2019 a main gear pivot pin walked out of the strut that rotated on it when retracting the landing gear on takeoff from Frankfurt, causing the strut to pierce the wing. The aircraft was only 4 months old, being one of the last 737-800s delivered. It was determined that the factory had not fitted the castellated retaining nut on the pivot pin, or if it had been present it had not been fitted with the required locking split pin, causing the pivot pin to eventually walk out of the strut. Boeing had to issue an instruction to all customers with 737-800s not old enough to have had their first line check to inspect the pivot pin. The subsequent investigation found this had happened twice before (in 2016 and 2017), but they had been identified by inpections before those aircraft left the factory.

Yes, this will cure my chronic fear of flying

[buzby]

For some reason I had imagined the attendant had stood on the switch rather than pressed it with their hand. Watching that video it doesn't look like it moves quickly fast enough to make a sudden jerk to the plane, and you'd think that someone who leaned on it accidentally would remove their hand reflexively once the seat and the button they were pressing started moving away.

It seems like bad design, though. If a pilot wants to adjust the position of their seat, they have to contort themselves to press a button behind their headrest? Even the passengers get to adjust their seats with a button on the armrest.

The switch on the seat back is mostly only used to move the seat back to allow the pilot to get in (which is why the seat moves to the side as it comes back). They have identical switches on the side of the seat (visible on the copilot's seat at 0:24 in that video) to move it fore and aft once they are sat in position.

The issue with the switch on the plane in the incident was that when the cover is pressed down it latches shut and with the switch cap sticking up it then constantly pressed on the switch, which meant that the seat continued to move forward to the end of it's travel (where the limit switch stops the motor) even once the flight attendant took their hand off it (which they had presumably done to lean over to hand the pilot a meal tray). If the pilot is short (or they have something in their lap, like a meal tray) it will push them straight into the yoke, pushing it forwards and putting the aircraft into a steep pitch down.

[touchingcloth]

If the pilot is short (or they have something in their lap, like a meal tray) it will push them straight into the yoke, pushing it forwards and putting the aircraft into a steep pitch down.

Spilling microwaved chips all over the altimeter in the process, and tipping gravy down the gearstick :(

The cover being the issue makes sense, though. My office chair has a dodgy cap on the hydraulic lift which sometimes presses against the nipple and sinks me down when I least expect it.

[Johnny Yesno]

For some reason I had imagined the attendant had stood on the switch rather than pressed it with their hand. Watching that video it doesn't look like it moves quickly fast enough to make a sudden jerk to the plane, and you'd think that someone who leaned on it accidentally would remove their hand reflexively once the seat and the button they were pressing started moving away.

Yes, I imagined the pilot shooting forwards into the steering wheel. Shows that you shouldn't get all your information about flying from Airplane!

The issue with the switch on the plane in the incident was that when the cover is pressed down it latches shut and with the switch cap sticking up it then constantly pressed on the switch, which meant that the seat continued to move forward to the end of it's travel (where the limit switch stops the motor) even once the flight attendant took their hand off it (which they had presumably done to lean over to hand the pilot a meal tray). If the pilot is short (or they have something in their lap, like a meal tray) it will push them straight into the yoke, pushing it forwards and putting the aircraft into a steep pitch down.

Somehow, that's more darkly comedic. A kind of Stannah-speed care home doom.

[touchingcloth]

Yes, I imagined the pilot shooting forwards into the steering wheel. Shows that you shouldn't get all your information about flying from Airplane!

Somehow, that's more darkly comedic. A kind of Stannah-speed care home doom.

(I'd forgotten that scene took place in an airport, presumably with a Boeing in the background there).

[touchingcloth]

I just went to look up whether Concorde was made by Boeing or Airbus, and it turns out it was neither (despite me since remembering there's a museum to Concorde at Filton Airport where Airbus have a headquarters.

[Blumf]

I just went to look up whether Concorde was made by Boeing or Airbus, and it turns out it was neither

Boeing famously lobbied for Concord to be banned from supersonic flight over the continental US, thus relegating it purely to trans-Atlantic flights, and making it financially unviable in the long run. They were a good engineering company once, but they've always been MIC bastards.

[Captain Z]

There's a decent Concorde documentary on Channel 4/All4 which touches on Boeing's attempts to build a rival supersonic passenger plane (the 2707) at the same time. Being American, their design was going to be twice as large, twice as fast etc but ran into enormous financial and engineering design problems and never came to fruition.

The most interesting part of the documentary is the Russian attempts to build a rival aircraft, which they achieved by employing a spy within the Concorde team to steal the plans.

[touchingcloth]

The most interesting part of the documentary is the Russian attempts to build a rival aircraft, which they achieved by employing a spy within the Concorde team to steal the plans.

Famously, when the Americans, the French, and the British tried to develop supersonic passenger travel they invested vast amounts of money and resources in research, development, engineering, and quality control, while the Russians used a pencil.

[Captain Z]

They may as well have. The completed Russian aircraft (Tu-144) beat Concorde to the skies by a few months, but on it's debut public appearance at the Paris Air Show the wings disintegrated during an uncontrolled dive and it crashed. Unsurprisingly, its reputation never really recovered.

[touchingcloth]

They may as well have. The completed Russian aircraft (Tu-144) beat Concorde to the skies by a few months, but on it's debut public appearance at the Paris Air Show the wings disintegrated during an uncontrolled dive and it crashed. Unsurprisingly, its reputation never really recovered.

Wikipedia reckons it started flying in 1968, but that airshow was in 1973. So did they someone manage to fly it for 5 years but not in public, whatever that means for something that's in the sky?

Wiki also says that

The Tupolev Tu-144 (Russian: Tyполев Ту-144; NATO reporting name: Charger) is a Soviet supersonic passenger airliner designed by Tupolev in operation from 1968 to 1999.

Being in operation for 25 years after that very public crash isn't too bad. In my memory, Concorde made about 3 more flights after it had its own fiery crash (also in Paris, coinkydinks?), so well done to the Soviets xox

[MojoJojo]

It mostly flew mail and freight in Russian service - there was a limited passenger service between 1975 and 1978, when a crash meant it went back to freight only service. Normal service ended in 1983. In the nineties, NASA used one for research, which is why the last flight is listed as 1999.

While the Russians did steal plans and specifications, it doesn't really seem like they used them.

[touchingcloth]

I wonder if their Buran would have done a Challenger or not.

On the one hand, all liquid propellant so it didn't have the main ingredient that did for Challenger.

On the other,

Buran completed one uncrewed spaceflight in 1988, and was destroyed in 2002 due to the collapse of its storage hangar.

[MojoJojo]

Buran was much less ambitious than the shuttle, it was only the orbiter that was reused. The shuttle only disposed of the fuel tank - even the solid rocket boosters parachuted down and were reused. So yeah the Buran would have been safer probably, and in practice the reusability didn't make the shuttle cheap anyway.

Buran automatously flew itself back and landed on it's runway by itself, which seems wildly advanced for 1988.

[touchingcloth]

Buran automatously flew itself back and landed on it's runway by itself, which seems wildly advanced for 1988.

I think a lot of Soviet space transport was autopiloted, and led to the American test pilots being aghast that the Russians would get in something they couldn't fly, and the Soviets being aghast that the Americans would get in something that couldn't fly itself.

In Mother Russia, spaceship fly YOU.

It's interesting how things have worked out quite well for those two approaches. The Gemini 8 crew would have died without manual control, but the Soyuz 11 crew's bodies wouldn't have made it to earth intact without automation.

[Zetetic]

Russia trying to row back from automation after the end of the Union (and parts now being manufactured in newly-seperated other republics) led to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_M-34

[Zetetic]

Mir sounds like a distinctly unfun place by the mid-90s. Apparently it variously smelt like a cave, burnt toast or a petrol station depending on whether you were catching the odour of whatever ecosystems were developing in the condensation that had been trapped behind panels for a decade, the fumes of leaking coolant, or the aftermath of the fires that the backup oxygen system had a tendency to start.

Coming up on the anniversay of pelting the poor thing back into the atmosphere.

[Captain Z]

While the Russians did steal plans and specifications, it doesn't really seem like they used them.

They definitely did because the initial designs were so similar in dimension and specification, right down to the articulated cockpit.

However, the spying was uncovered and stopped before Concorde had perfected their wing and engine intake design. Delta wing designs are not good at relatively low speed take off and landing, you need to create vortices above the wing to generate enough lift. Concorde eventually found the perfect design, but the TU-144 instead had additional mini-wings above the cockpit that folded out during take off/landing to disturb the air, and folded away during cruise. The engine intake also helped Concorde burn fuel much more efficiently, whereas the TU-144 could only achieve supersonic flight for about an hour before running out.

[touchingcloth]

I've just been for an MRI and googled what all of the sounds the machine makes are, which reminded me that I always mean to google what the loud squeaking sounds planes make before takeoff and after landing are.

Turns out it's only Airbuses that do it, and it tests our or initiates some hydraulic backup system they use - the Power Transfer Unit. I first assumed it was FLAPS, but I've looked for movement during the sounds in the past and seen nothing, like in this video:

[Ambient Sheep]

Yeah.  If you (or anyone else) needs any further elucidation, there's some old PPRuNe threads here:

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/435328-why-does-airbus-ptu-bark.html

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/359275-a319-barking-flight.html

https://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/617755-a320-electric-hydraulic-motor-making-sound.html

The third link not only links to the same video you did, but also links to a more succinct and slightly less technical explanation here:

https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/the-barking-dog-airbus-noises/

[touchingcloth]

Ta. I don't think I'd ever have figured that out as a passenger, unlike some of the other noises like the whir and clunk of the wheels deploying and retracting, or the various bings and bongs throughout the cabin. I always assumed that these were a bit like how guards signal to train drivers when the doors are closed and the platform is clear by giving a couple of blasts on a buzzer, and this was pretty much confirmed one flight when I saw an attendant at the front of the plane give the correct sequence of bings and bongs, get the attention of an attendant at the rear, and push their nose up in a piggy fashion and hold 2 fingers up - secret RyanAir code for "2 bacon rolls for row 3, ta".