The Problems With Boeing: Explained!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2024
- Boeing's issues are more than just engineering.
Subscribe! 🔴 bit.ly/2CtNsMb
Story of MCAS: tinyurl.com/28c939jn
FAA and Boeing 737 Issues: tinyurl.com/bdedmhxr
What I Travel With ► bit.ly/2iE7zu4
foXnoMad Apps ► foxnomad.com/apps/
Podcast ► bit.ly/foxnomad_podcast
About Me ► bit.ly/2oYOC9M
Get music for your videos: bit.ly/2pjvMyx
-
/ foxnomad
/ foxnomad
/ foxnomad.travel
The cockpit door is made to open, when there is a decompression ! Only problem was that nobody (not even Boeing) had told the crew that it was design to just that (and that's much better than getting it ripped of during a decompression!!) .
Never, ever, let bean counters run a company.
Bean counters just report on the capital flows inside the company.
Strategic, managerial and engineering decisions must be taken at a whole different level.
I havent been on a plane in 36 years and stuff like this is the reason why. I like staying alive.
Boeing's problems have never been engineering problems. They are management problems, i.e. management puts profit over safety (which is expensive), according to numerous whistleblowers quality control measures were negated (cheated on) or outright discontinued (eliminated).
After the MCAS debacle that cost hundreds of lives, Boeing SHOULD have learned a lesson but, true to form, the money-counters just pretended to repent and improve. It is now obvious that everything related to quality control at Boeing is STILL a stinking mess that Boeing is unlikely to survive. Then again, Boeing just might be "too big to fail" (when did we last hear that?).
If you don't exercise something, you are losing it. If they compromise safety on the management level, it means they do not do it properly on the engineering level. Overtime those skills got lost due to the retirement and leaving of the engineers who knew how to make safer planes.
when one door closes,
another door opens
- - Boeing
She wasn't his mother she was a mother who happened to be there with him to help
Yes, thanks for the correction. That detail was released after I recorded the video.
Boeing was known for its "belt and suspenders" engineering approach to airplane safety. It doesn't seem to have been practiced on this model 737.
I believe all fly by wire aircraft have 3-4 computers with two minimal agreeing to initiate a flight control input.
Why not multiple sensors standard 9n MCAS. Like maybe two on each side of the fuselage?
The decision to install only one sensor because their studies revealed the lone sensor failure to be inconceivable, what math did they use?
Concieling airplane information to the professional pilots is jut criminal.
737 is not lower to the ground because the design is older. It was a design decision made by boing since that means it's easier to service and it can even have stairs built into the plane, making it an option for small airports with little ground service.
Well yes it was a design decision, but a decision informed by the 1960s when higher aircraft weren't as easily accessible by ground equipment of that era.
There's still smaller/rural jetports today, but they're serviced just as easily by A319/20s as they are by 737s, because it's not an issue today.
airbus
Many years ago, when I looked at a 737 I thought, legs too short.
They should have extended the landing gear longtime ago.
The 737 fuselage just doesn't have the space for a bigger landing gear. The design is from the 60s, and big high-bypass engines weren't a thing then. They shouldn't have built the MAX but a completely new design instead. But they didn't because it would be more expensive and not come early enough to compete with the A320NEO.
@@NekiCat 🎯💯
Want to die fly Boeing
As a huge fan of Airbus, I would tell that Boeing is not the problem. But the 737 is the problem. I mean : even on the A350, there is american engines, so, Airbus and Boeing are finally the same. But the 737 : too old, even with "economic improvments". That's the real problem.
Boeing as a company has issues, it’s not just the 737 being old.
The FAA wasn’t doing its job and was just letting Boeing do whatever they wanted. Their workmen’ship isn’t what it used to be either. Missing bolts, tools left inside walls, sharp edges on wire runs etc etc etc
Yeah I am a Boeing fan there but, in a way their need to bring back Lockheed into the commercial aviation industry.
I don’t want to diss a company that makes the Mustang I would say this.
Leading Boeing to Ford standards is leading Boeing to Fokker stock market earnings.