Another Boeing bites the dust...

[Its On A Slab]

You and me both.
I watched a documentary about the Boeing space branch and their new capsule. Holy moley, Boeing screwed the pooch on that one. I think Boeing has admitted defeat and kept their space division on life support just so they can spin it off.

I remember when Boeing got the lion's share of initial funding for the Commercial Crew program, and thinking even back then that SpaceX was going to run laps around them. SpaceX had already established the Falcon 9 as a viable vehicle for satellite deployment and future human rating. Yet Boeing got the $$$ that all those lobbyists on their payroll sent their way.

I think Boeing should pay all that money back with interest. But they are above reproach it seems.

On a different note, it would seem that if we learned anything from the war in Ukraine, it's that we need a whole lot of pretty-good weapons, not a smaller supply of the highest tech. I think the Pentagon understood this when they pushed for the F15EX plane. Far less expensive than the F35.....which has its place.

 

[Tidewater]

I remember when Boeing got the lion's share of initial funding for the Commercial Crew program, and thinking even back then that SpaceX was going to run laps around them. SpaceX had already established the Falcon 9 as a viable vehicle for satellite deployment and future human rating. Yet Boeing got the $$$ that all those lobbyists on their payroll sent their way.

I think Boeing should pay all that money back with interest. But they are above reproach it seems.

On a different note, it would seem that if we learned anything from the war in Ukraine, it's that we need a whole lot of pretty-good weapons, not a smaller supply of the highest tech. I think the Pentagon understood this when they pushed for the F15EX plane. Far less expensive than the F35.....which has its place.

In economics, some industries have such high start-up costs that governments tolerate monopoloistic (or near monopolistic) behavior. The aircraft industry might be one of those.
Still, when a company knows it is a monopoly, they get fat and lazy and the quality of the product can slip. That seems to be the case with Boeing.
They need a near-death experience (as an organization) to snap them out of it, because it seems to pervade the company at present.
I agree with Earl, I feel more comfortable in an Airbus over the last ten years or so. It is kind of sad because Boeing used to be world class.

 

[75thru79]

In economics, some industries have such high start-up costs that governments tolerate monopoloistic (or near monopolistic) behavior. The aircraft industry might be one of those.
Still, when a company knows it is a monopoly, they get fat and lazy and the quality of the product can slip. That seems to be the case with Boeing.
They need a near-death experience (as an organization) to snap them out of it, because it seems to pervade the company at present.
I agree with Earl, I feel more comfortable in an Airbus over the last ten years or so. It is kind of sad because Boeing used to be world class.

I certainly hope Boeing can get their act together because we need them. It would be a terrible idea to allow Airbus to gain a near monopoly over commercial aircraft production.

 

[Its On A Slab]

In economics, some industries have such high start-up costs that governments tolerate monopoloistic (or near monopolistic) behavior. The aircraft industry might be one of those.
Still, when a company knows it is a monopoly, they get fat and lazy and the quality of the product can slip. That seems to be the case with Boeing.
They need a near-death experience (as an organization) to snap them out of it, because it seems to pervade the company at present.
I agree with Earl, I feel more comfortable in an Airbus over the last ten years or so. It is kind of sad because Boeing used to be world class.

We flew those bargain RyanAir 737s between cities when we were in Europe a year ago. I was always a little apprehensive, given the track record.

 

[Tidewater]

I certainly hope Boeing can get their act together because we need them. It would be a terrible idea to allow Airbus to gain a near monopoly over commercial aircraft production.

I would agree, but globally, there is room for multiple suppliers.
Within the US, only one company manufactures large commercial airliners.
There are other companies that manufacture aircraft, but only Boeing does large commercial airliners.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I would agree, but globally, there is room for multiple suppliers.
Within the US, only one company manufactures large commercial airliners.
There are other companies that manufacture aircraft, but only Boeing does large commercial airliners.

At least, the Airbus you fly in this country was assembled in Mobile...

 

[UAH]

I certainly hope Boeing can get their act together because we need them. It would be a terrible idea to allow Airbus to gain a near monopoly over commercial aircraft production.

COMAC The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China could become a significant force particularly in foreign markets for Commercial Aircraft in the near future. Embraer of Brazil is a significant player in the mid-sized commercial market even in the US and are the manufacturer of the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano for the US Air Force.

I would expect the COMAC to produce a plane with a significant cost advantage featuring a high level of technology.

The competitive field will shift quite a lot moving forward.

 

[75thru79]

COMAC The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China could become a significant force particularly in foreign markets for Commercial Aircraft in the near future. Embraer of Brazil is a significant player in the mid-sized commercial market even in the US and are the manufacturer of the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano for the US Air Force.

I would expect the COMAC to produce a plane with a significant cost advantage featuring a high level of technology.

The competitive field will shift quite a lot moving forward.

The last thing we need is a Chinese takeover of yet another key industry.

 

[spidermayin]

 

[TIDE-HSV]

COMAC The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China could become a significant force particularly in foreign markets for Commercial Aircraft in the near future. Embraer of Brazil is a significant player in the mid-sized commercial market even in the US and are the manufacturer of the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano for the US Air Force.

I would expect the COMAC to produce a plane with a significant cost advantage featuring a high level of technology.

The competitive field will shift quite a lot moving forward.

We've flown the Embraer, E175, I think, with United Express back and forth to Houston now several times now. It's a neat little jet. People seem to be slow to come to terms with its size. It has overhead storage only on one side, and it's undersized. We have a half-size pull-around which will fit, but each flight, there's been someone who thinks they can fit a full-sized one in and end up having to check it at the gate...

 

[UAH]

The last thing we need is a Chinese takeover of yet another key industry.

Boeing has sort of earned their way to facing stiff competition.

We've flown the Embraer, E175, I think, with United Express back and forth to Houston now several times now. It's a neat little jet. People seem to be slow to come to terms with its size. It has overhead storage only on one side, and it's undersized. We have a half-size pull-around which will fit, but each flight, there's been someone who thinks they can fit a full-sized one in and end up having to check it at the gate...

I have flown them back in the day in the US and in Brazil for short flights. Mainly in Brazil, due to high air travel demand, most often it would be newer models of Air Bus with few air miles. Avianca had been granted routes in Brazil and had brand new planes. Flying a Columbian aircraft caught my attention but they did a first rate job.

 

[UAH]

The last thing we need is a Chinese takeover of yet another key industry.

The main population growth across the world will lie around the Pacific Basin except China and Japan. I would believe that if American or European businesses want to compete there they need to be developing partnerships in the region. That thought leads me to recalling The Trans Pacific Partnership. We know how that turned out! That and the Iranian Nuclear Treaty.

The US population has grown signifcantely over the last couple of decades driven by people coming to the US for school, professionals attracted to jobs in high tech or research and literally millions to do the hard jobs in our economy. We had a very good economic growth as a result . Now we are breaking all of that.

 

[crimsonaudio]

In economics, some industries have such high start-up costs that governments tolerate monopoloistic (or near monopolistic) behavior. The aircraft industry might be one of those.
Still, when a company knows it is a monopoly, they get fat and lazy and the quality of the product can slip. That seems to be the case with Boeing.
They need a near-death experience (as an organization) to snap them out of it, because it seems to pervade the company at present.
I agree with Earl, I feel more comfortable in an Airbus over the last ten years or so. It is kind of sad because Boeing used to be world class.

That’s not what happened with Boeing - what happened with Boeing is they merged with MD and instead of keeping the mgmt (primarily engineering based) from Boeing, they took in mgmt from MD (primarily ‘businessmen’ aka bean-counters).

Boeing still has amazing engineers - they’re just managed by idiots.

 

[2003TIDE]

Read somewhere else a 787 can’t take off with flaps in wrong position it won’t let you. Also the captain was very experienced so pilot error on something like that seems unlikely. Video shows the RAT down which points to complete power loss.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Read somewhere else a 787 can’t take off with flaps in wrong position it won’t let you. Also the captain was very experienced so pilot error on something like that seems unlikely. Video shows the RAT down which points to complete power loss.

I saw an interesting Youtube last night by a former airline pilot. He had flown for a bunch and was familiar with the cockpit. While admitting it was all speculation until the black box is found, he said that lowering the flaps and raising landing gear is the first officer's responsibility. He said the flaps appeared not to be deployed and the landing gear should have already been raised. The pilot is supposed to be keeping his head up and scanning for trouble. He speculated that the FO may have become distracted and flipped the "flaps up" switch instead the "retract landing gear" switch. The altitude gained was probably from the "Ground Effect," which helps boost up the takeoff and is generally effective about to the height of the length of the wings, tip to tip. Under those circumstances, although not ruling out engine failure, he said that the tactile feedback to the pilot would be the same as if the engines were failing. What I don't understand yet is why the flaps weren't down before the taxi even began. I don't believe they were retracted during takeoff. They just weren't deployed. Unless there's some more evidence, the finger now seems to point to flight deck error...

 

[2003TIDE]

There were people on /r/aviation with pics showing what they said were the flaps down. Like you said they have the flight recorders so we will know soon enough, but the RAT being deployed means there was a complete power failure. That is auto deployed.

 

[jthomas666]

I think Boeing has a warehouse full of dirty pictures of DC politicians. The way they keep getting the lion's share of new development $$$.

That, plus they buy up the competition.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

• There’s practically zero chance this is a Boeing issue. The 787 model has been in service 13 years with no known issues and no prior hull losses. This particular airframe was put into service in January 2014, so again, over 11 years in service before the incident.
• It’s slightly more likely, though still highly unlikely, that it’s an engine issue per se. Air India chose GE engines or for its 787s fleet, and again there are no prior known issues with these engines over 13 years of powering 787s.
• For people saying that the flaps don’t appear to have been set, do you know what flaps 5 looks like on the 787 when viewed from almost directly behind and from a distance? Because of how large these wings are, it’s not as noticeable as you might think, and nowhere near as noticeable as on a smaller wing, such as the 737’s. Additionally, the 787 has abundant cockpit technology that makes it practically impossible to begin and maintain your takeoff run without the proper flap and slat setting (computed based on the weight and balance of the aircraft, the weather and wind conditions at the airport, as well as the elevation of the airport). The crew would literally have had to ignore loud warnings in the cockpit the entire takeoff run.
• The most likely fault is going to lie with Air India. It’s either
  • a pilot training issue (unlikely given the experience of the crew)
  • pilot error. E.g., pilot monitoring retracted flaps instead of gear once the plane had achieved positive rate, which it appears to have done; but given the experience of the pilots and how different those two levers look and feel from each other, again, that isn’t the most likely thing
  • an electrical problem to rob the plane of power, which would almost certainly be a maintenance issue, not a manufacturing issue
  • or, and I haven’t seen this speculated anywhere else, a fuel contamination issue, which would be also fall on Air India (even if a third party provides the fuel, it’s up to Air India to QC it)
• It’s also possible the fault lies with the airport. Was the debris cloud (visibly kicked up when the airplane rotated off the runway) because of improper airfield maintenance? Did that debris cloud get ingested into the engines and cause them to lose power?

The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder will provide answers soon enough…

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

At least, the Airbus you fly in this country was assembled in Mobile...

Some are. Not all are.

 

[UAH]

• There’s practically zero chance this is a Boeing issue. The 787 model has been in service 13 years with no known issues and no prior hull losses. This particular airframe was put into service in January 2014, so again, over 11 years in service before the incident.
• It’s slightly more likely, though still highly unlikely, that it’s an engine issue per se. Air India chose GE engines or for its 787s fleet, and again there are no prior known issues with these engines over 13 years of powering 787s.
• For people saying that the flaps don’t appear to have been set, do you know what flaps 5 looks like on the 787 when viewed from almost directly behind and from a distance? Because of how large these wings are, it’s not as noticeable as you might think, and nowhere near as noticeable as on a smaller wing, such as the 737’s. Additionally, the 787 has abundant cockpit technology that makes it practically impossible to begin and maintain your takeoff run without the proper flap and slat setting (computed based on the weight and balance of the aircraft, the weather and wind conditions at the airport, as well as the elevation of the airport). The crew would literally have had to ignore loud warnings in the cockpit the entire takeoff run.
• The most likely fault is going to lie with Air India. It’s either
  • a pilot training issue (unlikely given the experience of the crew)
  • pilot error. E.g., pilot monitoring retracted flaps instead of gear once the plane had achieved positive rate, which it appears to have done; but given the experience of the pilots and how different those two levers look and feel from each other, again, that isn’t the most likely thing
  • an electrical problem to rob the plane of power, which would almost certainly be a maintenance issue, not a manufacturing issue
  • or, and I haven’t seen this speculated anywhere else, a fuel contamination issue, which would be also fall on Air India (even if a third party provides the fuel, it’s up to Air India to QC it)
• It’s also possible the fault lies with the airport. Was the debris cloud (visibly kicked up when the airplane rotated off the runway) because of improper airfield maintenance? Did that debris cloud get ingested into the engines and cause them to lose power?

The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder will provide answers soon enough…

A retired commercial pilot found the original video. He said that everyone had been watching a video of a video. He stated that it was possible that the co-pilot when the instruction was for wheels up he pulled up the flaps instead. That is obviousl supposition at best. What he did spot in the original video there was some indication that the RAT had deployed underneath the right wing. It is a small 2 prop turboprop which is intended to provide power for instruments and hydraulics in the event of failure of both engines. His conclusion was that there was potential loss of power of both engines.

As you say we will all know in the near future. I am attaching the video.