« Is Bolton Trashing Yet Another Arms Control Agreement? | Main | “Assad urged Syrian refugees to come home. Many are being welcomed with arrest and interrogation.” - TTG »

06 June 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


And then there will be the deep discount they will have to offer to get Max sales going again. The cash cow will become a more slender animal.

Lloyd D. Herod, Jr.

There is a very inclusive and well written article in the IEEE Spectrum on this very subject. The link: https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer. The level this is written to is easily digested by the membership of SST.

Again, shades of Challenger and the addition of Regan's mania for deregulation. Dr. Feynman would not be amused, but likely not surprised either.

dilbert dogbert

Back in the day when Boeing HQ was moved to Chicago from Seattle, I thought there goes Boeing. Who the hell would want to live in Chicago rather than Seattle. The reason given was Chicago was closer to customers. Yes, I guess Chicago is closer to China.
I think silly things like where the HQ is can have dangerous effects. Sort of like Pan Am when the CEO concentrated on building the Pan Am building in NYC and not fighting like hell for a transcontinental route across the US when the overseas market was opened to competitors.


Lloyd, Excellent Spectrum (IEEE) link. Captures the problem quite well and it boggles me that this occurred. Feynman is no doubt rolling over in his grave.


Fred, do I understand you correctly. Canada, the EU and China are or their respective regulation authorities are to blame, if the US, wisely, cuts back on regulations, emphasizing the necessary support, of, however you call it: of the respective businesses own inner self-regulations?


how much chance has a private speculator holding 15% have more generally? what is the precise difference between a state holding that share versus influential private interests.

Not sure I understand.

What I understand is that as usual one side may be blaming the other.


the French government just stopped that.




Do you think Canada, the EU and China are each sovereign and responsible for their own citizens and therefore not relient upon the USA to create regulatory envirnonments and certify aircraft on thier behalf?


Quite the opposite.


what are you trying to tell me though?

Be prepared to remain a vassal Trump style???



While I understand the point your are making the pressure on the Challenger launch schedule was due to the urgent need to get the "Teacher in Space" program and some other assorted necessities into orbit. The people putting the pressure on decided they couldn't possibly wait a day, a week or a month for warm weather. The Astronaut Office knew about the risk and decided political pressure was more important. NASA isn't a corporation, it is a government agency. They will eventually see what is left of thier gravy train disappear since Blue Origin, Space X and others are proving that commercial success is possible. Much to the chagrin of a number of inefficient NASA contractors.


Joanna, apologies as I am having a difficult time with my technology. I can't get links to come over to Typepad.


Several EU countries hold stock positions in Airbus, enough to provide a "blocking minority" on certain organizational changes. Then there is the position of "launch aid". In fact, it appears a billion Euro will be "forgiven" on the A380 program this way. There no analogous process in the US.



“FCA remains firmly convinced of the compelling, transformational rationale of a proposal that has been widely appreciated since it was submitted, the structure and terms of which were carefully balanced to deliver substantial benefits to all parties,” according to a company statement provided to TechCrunch. “However, it has become clear that the political conditions in France do not currently exist for such a combination to proceed successfully.”



If only the EU were not a union conquered peoples doing exactly what the Americans Donald J. Trump tells them to do.


Sorry what I wrote must have made more sense in my head than on the page. What I meant is they will not be buying Boeing air planes rather than the company which the US would never let happen. Same thing with AirBus.

Lloyd D. Herod, Jr.

dilbert dogbert;
I thoroughly agree with you comment about moving Boeing's HQ to Chicago. An incredibly foolish decision on just about all counts. One of the reasons given as you state was closeness to customers, I believe that for the sales presentations, Boeing flew the customer to Seattle. This move had the catastrophic outcome of moving the executives even farther from the production sites, So far in fact that in one of the last strikes the fools who ran Boeing at the time managed, for what I believe to be the first time in Boeing history, to cause the Engineers (a usually placid lot) to go on strike with the Machinists (usually not a placid lot). HP grew to be what it was because the top management (including Bill and Dave) regularly visited the engineers and production lines. Or was it was called "management by walking around". My own belief is if you give an MBA an engineering company it'll be dead in 10 years.


Other nations customarily followed FAA’s lead. No more. The FAA no longer is the gold standard on international air safety. US deregulation saw to that. Such trust can never be regained. Just another case of the USA throwing away it’s standing in the cause of greed and short-term gain benefiting a relative few with power in the moment.



The last time I looked the USA did not run the EU or China. Other nations abandoned thier actual responsibilities but kept a bunch of people on staff to collect paychecks. But No More! Now the EU, and China! will do thier own work. I'm sure the people of the EU and China can now trust those governments to do the right thing. Other than the folks who voted for the Brexit party in the EU or the people in Hong Kong protesting the central government.


Historically does anyone know how it works in reverse? How have Airbus aircraft been certified in the EU,USA and elsewhere? I had assumed the manufacturing nation handled the original detailed certification and other nations did the equivalent of peer reviewing their work before affixing their stamp. Now we have suspicion that the FAA was not sufficiently independent of pressure and the status quo ante may need reevaluation.


I believe there is usually bilateral cooperation in certifications. It appears where that hit the rocks was the FAA's lack of action after the Ethiopian crash. I can't remember another entity grounding an American made commercial aircraft before the FAA did. A quick research scan showed nothing like that.



Fred, sorry about the late response. So, for me the cadence on the Shuttle is primarily involved in going from Apollo to the Shuttle, which was going to fly as much twice a week. The program utterly failed to meet the parameters set for it to be funded and got insanely more expensive. It would take try after try to get a launch off and Congress was getting nastier and more skeptical by the day.

In the background they were running out of spares, down to maybe six months left. Things were truly getting out of hand and the risks were piling up.

They just made too many compromises. The Orbiter that was created was incredibly fragile. It was designed with an escape feature that got canceled. All just reasoned their way through flying with things that were no go at the beginning of the program. The original spec on the External Tank was zero foam being shed. At the end it was just 'patch up the tiles.'

It still is painful, all these years on.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad