OV9

Makes sense (to temporarily halt the production line) since they aren’t selling any.

Orange Cola wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:37 am They’ve been building them at a reducing rate as they’ve filled up various places to stash them in. Either that or they’ve had to make further changes and the amount of re-work to existing planes which are sat around waiting has got too much for them to cope with.

Well they still aren’t certified. Once they get that cert they will have to put out a list of changes that were made I reckon, like some release notes before people will trust them again. Hope this doesn’t push operators that rely on them under.

drcarlos wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:46 am

Orange Cola wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:37 am They’ve been building them at a reducing rate as they’ve filled up various places to stash them in. Either that or they’ve had to make further changes and the amount of re-work to existing planes which are sat around waiting has got too much for them to cope with.

Well they still aren’t certified. Once they get that cert they will have to put out a list of changes that were made I reckon, like some release notes before people will trust them again. Hope this doesn’t push operators that rely on them under.

I think they had a bit of a crisis in supplying replacement planes or extending contracts on existing ones to bridge the gaps between the current planes scheduled to go out of service (or be re-furbished to them go to another airline). I know the airlines themselves have also struggled with scheduling.

I haven’t read anything in the news about the expected timings around re-certification, has anyone seen anything?

https://apple.news/A_qq-PdvQSx-4mhW7aC8Vgw

CEO booted

I think people are wanting a good chunk of the board to follow him out the door too, too little too late I suspect.

I really question if I'd ever fly on the damn thing through choice. I see cabin crew at one or two US airlines are refusing to fly on it when it comes back to service. I don't blame them.

It’s not intrinsically unsafe - once they address the stupid decisions made in the design process, and properly train the pilots in the way the systems work, I wouldn’t be concerned about flying in one.

mik wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:04 am It’s not intrinsically unsafe - once they address the stupid decisions made in the design process, and properly train the pilots in the way the systems work, I wouldn’t be concerned about flying in one.

I’d agree with this. If they’d got it back flying after 2 weeks, I might feel differently but failure isn’t an option this time round.

I understand the issues well enough, and yes, I understand how they're going to limit the power of MCAS through changes to the software, but I'ld like to see them go back and fit the optional AOA disagree light (a safety feature) to all planes regardless. Critical safety features should not be optional.

I do not disagree with the above statement.

This was one of the stupid design decisions I mentioned earlier.

Simon wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:48 pm I understand the issues well enough, and yes, I understand how they're going to limit the power of MCAS through changes to the software, but I'ld like to see them go back and fit the optional AOA disagree light (a safety feature) to all planes regardless. Critical safety features should not be optional.

Funny thing is, it was discovered in the investigation some carriers paid for this and it wasn’t activated

All planes had the capability to have the warning, as it just came on the lcd screens, the feature just had to be enabled at stupid cost, just like a lot of car optional extras

It's all well and good a few technically minded people perhaps being satisfied they might fly on them but general public? Unless the carriers are happy they think they can get them back into service without much public fuss there could still be very choppy waters ahead

I bet EasyJet are having a good laugh at Ryanair’s expense. Over a quarter of the fleet is waiting to be replaced.

More test pilot complaints ignored in new messages.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ations-faa

“This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51058929

Not sure a business which is dependent on manufacturing hugely complex products, relying on systems and components fitting together with accuracy and to tight tolerances, was in particularly safe hands with an ex-CEO that couldn't even get his shirt collar circumference to within 3 inches of his own neck

GG. wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:02 pm Not sure a business which is dependent on manufacturing hugely complex products, relying on systems and components fitting together with accuracy and to tight tolerances, was in particularly safe hands with an ex-CEO that couldn't even get his shirt collar circumference to within 3 inches of his own neck

I'm with Dennis on this. I *HATE* things around my neck, which is why I now refuse to wear a tie, save for my own wedding, and a shirt should be comfortable not strangle you.

As for the debris in fuel tanks on new planes? Who can be surprised, really. The more I hear about Boeing's self-induced woes, the less I ever want to go on one of their planes.

New bug found in 787 coding - requires to be turned off then on again...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/0 ... tale_data/

Well it’s not like they’re flying at the moment.