If it ain't Boeing I ain't going...

[Staga]

Originally posted by Toad

For years, Boeing pretended a) there was nothing wrong with the 737 PCU and b) there was no need for a dual PCU system.

So not only there was a fatal flaw in Boeings but the manufacturer also tried to hide it but got caught after crashes?
Makes you think what else are they hiding eh?

Anyways there's no aircraft I wouldn't jump in; maybe some airline companies like "Air Mozambique" would make me search alternative carriers.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Its propably just in the US that the phrase "US Quality" isnt read as sarcasm.....

Where are YOU from Tex, where everything is made so much better than here?

[mora]

Originally posted by Staga
Anyways there's no aircraft I wouldn't jump in; maybe some airline companies like "Air Mozambique" would make me search alternative carriers.

A mddle-eastern charter company is something I would also try to avoid. The same goes for some asian carriers.

[TexMurphy]

I didnt say our stuff is better then anyone elses.

Im just saying that domestic does not quality. In fact overly beliving that domestic things are of higher quality then imported things is arrogance.

There is no single place with the highest quality. Each nation has something that is better then the other nation and something that is worse then the other nation.

When it comes to the US there are quality things produced in the US but not always the things which are claimed to be high quality. Text book example, cars.

Tex

[Toad]

Originally posted by Staga
So not only there was a fatal flaw in Boeings but the manufacturer also tried to hide it but got caught after crashes?
 

No. Try harder.

Boeing, the FAA and the Air Line Pilots Association Safety division all worked together on the crashes. In the beginning, none of these folks could figure out the problem. The pilots were the first to suspect it was the PCU and suggested that a change be made immediately. The other two agencies were not sure. You can't get a company or the FAA to make multi-million dollar changes on a suspicion. It took years and more crashes for enough clear evidence to accumulate that pointed to the PCU.

I think it should have been done when ALPA suggested it. Yeah, it cost money but it was still a relatively simple fix. As a side note, when ALPA first suggested it was the PCU, Delta agreed and decided to increase the freqency of inspection on the PCU and shorten the overhaul time. We never had a 737 hardover... go figure.

Boeing didn't try to hide it; they made a few changes to the PCU during the period of investigation. The FAA didn't try to hide it either. It just took them a while to gather conclusive proof.

Sorta like the Airbus incident where their chief pilot mowed down half a forest because the controls laws were krap. Took Airbus a while to realize how it happened and then another while to decide they needed to change the control laws.

There did you like that? It's in the same vein as your jihad.

[Toad]

How do you easily tell if an airline skimps on maintaining their aircraft? Well, if you read they are laying off mechanics.....

Pretty much just like looking at a buying a house. If the house looks run down, if the yard if full of trash, if the inside is a mess with leaky faucets... you can guess the owner doesn't really worry about maintenance.

You see bedraggled planes that have little things broken all the time, fly someone else. If they aren't keeping up the cabin fixtures and paint jobs, they probably are cutting corners elsewhere.

I'm not talking about normal wear and tear. I'm talking seeing broken lavs, worn out cabin furnishings on every plane every time you fly. Stuff like that.

[Dinger]

...hehe my favorite exchange while settling down for a transatlantic flight on a full 74 classic:

(passenger sitting next to me): This seatbelt's in backwards and won't attach.
(Me, having flown coast-to-coast on the same airline and familiar with the problem): That's no problem, just pop the cushion out and detach er...
(seatbelt fails to detach).
(passenger calls over flight attendant, explains problem).
Flight Attendant: It's your seat, sit in it.


Ah, the joys of Tower Air. Now there was a _scary_ airline. Hell, when they had scheduled flights, they converted a maintenance hangar at JFK and called it a terminal.

[Maverick]

FWIW,

There is a revolution in aircraft building going on right now. There is a new technology, composites, that is taking the aviation world by storm. Some say it is the resurection of small private aircraft. Others say it will be a dead end.

There is a wealth of data on the longevity of aluminum aircraft. We KNOW they last for decades. Hell there are some that are well over 50 years old still flying and these are LIGHT aircraft, not the heavies. The new composites allow designers to do wonderful things. There are claims that composites are far stronger weight for weight than aluminum and even steel. That is true.

What we don't have is a definate idea of how long or under what conditions composites will retain that strength.

I like composite aircraft but I feel more comfortable in aluminum. I've worked on both and each has it's adherants. AS far as I am concerned I do not have confidence that a composite airframe will stand up to decades of use and outside storage like an aluminum airframe will. That goes for ANY size / type of airframe.

Has anyone seen a composite anything left out in the sun for years? Would you like to be flying in that after it's been outside for the last 20 years?

[Skydancer]

"This USA vs Euro thing is getting tiring."

Just about the truest thing said in here for a long while!

(only an observation) Back to the great trans atlantic slagging match guys!

[Toad]

Not only that, visual inspection of composites really doesn't tell you much. The tests that do are going to be REAL expensive for private planes... they're REAL expensive for commercial planes.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Staga
FYI LePaul I don't think anyone is superior but if You like to think so please do so; Your opinion is really valuabe like always.

Anyways it can be found from airdisater.com that some Boeings are doing better than Airbuses and some are doing worse.
I just find it idiotic when some eurohater nutcases are thinking that Boeing is somehow superior or at least they are denying or ignoring those aircrafts have their flaws too.

You guys know we (the air warrior crowd) have been debating what planes are superior since we got into flight sims.  I dont see how this is any different.

I personaly do not like Airbus because of their subsidised business practices.  And I find the argument that boeing is the same because they hold military contracts to be a joke.

[bunch]

I hear Vans is working on an 80 passenger kit plane

[Staga]

 Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

Local News : Tuesday, February 22, 2000

Boeing told FAA in secret of 737 rudder hazard before 1994 crash

by Byron Acohido
Seattle Times staff reporter

Boeing knew for years that pilots had no way to overcome dangerous rudder problems that could occur while flying 737 jets at low speeds, but waited until after two planes crashed to acknowledge the problem, newly released court documents indicate.

The documents, which include letters from Boeing to the Federal Aviation Administration, were filed in a lawsuit against Boeing and its rudder-parts supplier, Parker Hannifin Corp., by the families of two people who died in the 1994 crash of a US Airways 737 near Pittsburgh.

The suit, filed in Chicago, was settled late last year, with Boeing agreeing to pay $25.5 million to the two victims' families. The Seattle Times then asked Cook County Circuit Court Judge Judith Cohen to release records that might otherwise be sealed in the wake of the settlement. This week, Cohen ordered most of the court papers released.

The documents establish the companies' long-standing awareness of the rudder's propensity to deflect on its own. What's more, the papers show Boeing discovered in the early 1980s that there was little pilots could do to recover from some rogue deflections, yet failed to point out the significance of that finding to safety regulators and airlines.

Boeing insists it did nothing wrong, and everything it was required to by federal safety regulations.

Records from the court file indicate:


Boeing's original 1963 patent for the valve that controls the 737's rudder, along with other documents, describe potentially catastrophic consequences from the valve jamming and causing the rudder to deflect on its own.

While certifying the 737-300 for commercial service in 1984, Boeing conducted flight tests that showed at low speeds - below what's called a "crossover speed" - there was nothing a pilot could do to neutralize a jammed rudder.

Boeing waited until 1992 - the year after a defective rudder flipped a United Airlines 737-200 slowing to land in Colorado Springs - to discuss the safety implications of the crossover-speed hazard with the FAA. Twenty-five people died in the Colorado crash.

In discussing the hazard with the FAA, Boeing insisted that the agency keep the information to itself, saying it was a trade secret. The FAA complied.

Two years later came the Pittsburgh crash. The US Airways 737-300 was slowing to land when a rudder deflection twisted it into a precipitous dive, killing all 132 onboard.
It wasn't until late 1995 - after the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inadvertently learned about the crossover-speed danger - that 737 pilots began flying faster during takeoffs and landings to minimize the hazard.

Those disclosures helped the families of two Pittsburgh crash victims, Thomas Kinsey and Denise Jenkins, win the settlements from Boeing and Parker Hannifin.

On the eve of the opening of a jury trial in November, the companies agreed to pay Kinsey's wife, Ramona, $14 million and Jenkins' husband, Christopher, $11.5 million.

[Toad]

Gosh... it was a secret letter. I wonder why I didn't get a copy when I was flying the 737-200??????


Anyway, Straga. I hadn't seen that before. Seems to me Boeing ought to have been crucified, and the FAA right next to them.

Correlates to the other thread about unions and not needing redundant safety organizations. I know ALPA was warning about the PCU, probably right when Boeing and the FAA were swapping secret love notes.

[Staga]

Sorry I forgot to add "There did you like that? It's in the same vein as your jihad" in that. I'll try to remember it next time.