Sign in to follow this  
Maverick

Another 737 MAX down.

Recommended Posts

Well, clearly it's not a certified device - there's only one pilot seat, one PFD, one CC.  Sure, he demonstrates turning off some switches but without a shaker, bad airspeed data, a moving trim wheel and inputs from a bad MCAS its pointless.  Did you watch Sully (the movie)?  Remember the part where the test pilots showed how he could have and should have landed in Teterboro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seeker said:

Well, clearly it's not a certified device - there's only one pilot seat, one PFD, one CC.  Sure, he demonstrates turning off some switches but without a shaker, bad airspeed data, a moving trim wheel and inputs from a bad MCAS its pointless.  Did you watch Sully (the movie)?  Remember the part where the test pilots showed how he could have and should have landed in Teterboro?

Not sure where you’re going with this? The video pilot’s actions and description are completely accurate. Many FTD’s (similar to the one I used in STL in 1989) have only the left seat to train and practice using the Autoflight/MCP and FMC functions. They are designed this way to allow assisted or solo use. At TWA you could sign out the FTD and practice as much as needed. I know I did so I wouldn’t waste any time in the FFS. 

If you’re still in doubt, visit any major flight school or aviation college. They all have these types of devices for pilot training and they are regularly certified by TC. 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, sorry, my mistake.  I was responding to the news report which calls the thing a simulator.  My point was that it's not a certified FFS.  I am aware of FTDs and realize that they are also certified.  You're correct, the pilot's actions and description in the video are accurate but we could sit in front of a couple of flight deck posters and point at the switches with the same accuracy - proves nothing and reveals nothing about what happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, seeker said:

Well, clearly it's not a certified device - there's only one pilot seat, one PFD, one CC.  Sure, he demonstrates turning off some switches but without a shaker, bad airspeed data, a moving trim wheel and inputs from a bad MCAS its pointless.  Did you watch Sully (the movie)?  Remember the part where the test pilots showed how he could have and should have landed in Teterboro?

A lot of A320 pilots have attempted the TEB scenario in the simulator unsuccessfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

While that may be true, back then there was not the availability for the travelling public to be so much better informed about the intricate workings of airplanes and airlines. With all the social media and instant communications available now, I think the travelling public may be better equipped to understand  the basics of the problem and understand the "fix" when it is incorporated. 

There have been numerous aircraft accidents with different models of modern day  aircraft  and people were quick to climb back on after the headlines got smaller and moved further away from being the top story.......Should be no problem, especially in the US  where  the government circus  makes better news  almost everyday 

This investigation isn't going to end with a concise easy to explain result and action item. It isn't just a new system, it isn't just pilot training, it isn't just commercial pressures and it isn't just mechanical failure. Even if the final reports are utterly damning to the respective flight crews these accidents have undermined the reputation of Boeing and American regulators and the media, lawyers and politicians smell a scandal.

You're going to be seeing depositions of Boeing employees on 60 minutes and internal memos published in their entirety several years from now.

Edited by Super 80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, seeker said:

Well, clearly it's not a certified device - there's only one pilot seat, one PFD, one CC.  Sure, he demonstrates turning off some switches but without a shaker, bad airspeed data, a moving trim wheel and inputs from a bad MCAS its pointless.  Did you watch Sully (the movie)?  Remember the part where the test pilots showed how he could have and should have landed in Teterboro?

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp9685-chapter4-menu-1061.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have software on my PC that, when coupled with the correct hardware, is able to be certified by both the FAA and TC.  

FWIW the software alone can simulate most things.  Unfortunately it has not caught up with the MAX 8 as yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an Air Transport World article:

Meanwhile, Ethiopian Airlines issued a statement clarifying that ET302’s first officer had 350 total flying hrs., not 200 as the airline reported in a bulletin issued the day of the accident. The pilot-in-command had 8,100 hrs. and has been a 737 captain since November 2017. Ethiopian said the ET302 crew mix reflects its “effort to enhance safety” by ensuring its less-experienced first officers are paired with “highly experienced” captains.

In Europe and perhaps other parts of the world but I wouldn’t describe this recently promoted Captain as “highly experienced” and certainly not on the 737 Max. 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Super 80 said:

This investigation isn't going to end with a concise easy to explain result and action item. It isn't just a new system, it isn't just pilot training, it isn't just commercial pressures and it isn't just mechanical failure. 

I’d say this is a reasonable viewpoint. As with any airline or other accident, there’s always a sequence of events where had one item changed prior to the final moment, the outcome would also change. So instead of the minutes or hours prior, these Max crashes have a long series of various events over several years leading up to both accidents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter to the public from Boeing

https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/letter-from-boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-to-airlines-passengers-and-the-aviation-community/https://canadianaviationnews.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/letter-from-boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-to-airlines-passengers-and-the-aviation-community/

Our Commitment 

We know lives depend on the work we do, and our teams embrace that responsibility with a deep sense of commitment every day. Our purpose at Boeing is to bring family, friends and loved ones together with our commercial airplanes—safely. The tragic losses of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610 affect us all, uniting people and nations in shared grief for all those in mourning. Our hearts are heavy, and we continue to extend our deepest sympathies to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board.

Safety is at the core of who we are at Boeing, and ensuring safe and reliable travel  on our airplanes is an enduring value and our absolute commitment to everyone.  This overarching focus on safety spans and binds together our entire global aerospace industry and communities. We’re united with our airline customers, international regulators and government authorities in our efforts to support the most recent investigation, understand the facts of what happened and help prevent future tragedies. Based on facts from the Lion Air Flight 610 accident and emerging data as it becomes available from the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident, we’re taking actions to fully ensure the safety of the 737 MAX. We also understand and regret the challenges  for our customers and the flying public caused by the fleet’s grounding.

Our Dedication

Work is progressing thoroughly and rapidly to learn more about the Ethiopian Airlines accident and understand the information from the airplane’s cockpit voice and flight data recorders. Our team is on-site with investigators to support the investigation and provide technical expertise. The Ethiopia Accident Investigation Bureau will determine when and how it’s appropriate to release additional details.

Boeing has been in the business of aviation safety for more than 100 years, and we’ll continue providing the best products, training and support to our global airline customers and pilots. This is an ongoing and relentless commitment to make safe airplanes even safer. Soon we’ll release a software update and related pilot training  for the 737 MAX that will address concerns discovered in the aftermath of the Lion Air Flight 610 accident. We’ve been working in full cooperation with the U.S.

Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board on all issues relating to both the Lion Air and the  Ethiopian Airlines accidents since the Lion Air accident occurred in October last year.

Our Values

Our entire team is devoted to the quality and safety of the aircraft we design, produce and support. I’ve dedicated my entire career to Boeing, working shoulder to shoulder with our amazing people and customers for more than three decades, and I personally share their deep sense of commitment. Recently, I spent time with our team members  at our 737 production facility in Renton, Wash., and once again saw firsthand the pride our people feel in their work and the pain we’re all experiencing in light of these tragedies. The importance of our work demands the utmost integrity and excellence— that’s what I see in our team, and we’ll never rest in pursuit of it. 

Our mission is to connect people and nations, protect freedom, explore our world  and the vastness of space, and inspire the next generation of aerospace dreamers  and doers—and we’ll fulfill that mission only by upholding and living our values.  That’s what safety means to us. Together, we’ll keep working to earn and keep  the trust people have placed in Boeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blues deville said:

I’d say this is a reasonable viewpoint. As with any airline or other accident, there’s always a sequence of events where had one item changed prior to the final moment, the outcome would also change. So instead of the minutes or hours prior, these Max crashes have a long series of various events over several years leading up to both accidents. 

The MAX-8 Series aircraft only entered service on May 22 2017 with it first revenue flight.  Hardly several years of data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit, there is a bundle of info in this forum, and elsewhere,  that I have recently waded through and attempted to digest, in an informative manner,  but as a simple minded.retiree, and if I had to call the blame game, I would state  that it appears to be a PILOT knowledge/instructional  based problem.

If, what I have read so far, there was a simple action to regain control of the oscillating aircraft and had the pilots been trained properly and perhaps more emphasis put on a "run-away" MCAS situation then perhaps there would not have been any crashes............and perhaps with documented  cases, concerning the survived cases of run-away MCAS , Boeing may have come up with a fix much earlier.

As I understand, it looks as if , if the MCAS was to blame for both crashes, and  would it not be unreasonable to ask..."Why didn't the pilots just turn off the stab switches and manually trim ?"

To me, this whole affair can be paralleled to building the first airliners and no one thought to teach pilots how to fly into a ditching  until after a couple of airplanes lawn-darted into the wet sky  and  everyone was lost when they could have been saved had the pilots been taught how to do the drill....

I suppose in the end, there will be a reconciliation and someone will "carry the can" but  perhaps there is too much emphasis being put on the "technology will never let you get into a bad situation" mantra ......and we have all seen what that "mantra  trained pilot attitude"  can do in an "electric " airplane.

Edited by Kip Powick
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, boestar said:

The MAX-8 Series aircraft only entered service on May 22 2017 with it first revenue flight.  Hardly several years of data.

By series of events over several years I’m referring to it’s 2011 launch and the first flight in 2016 up to today. This new 737 went through multiple development stages with endless decisions being made about its features and design. With these two crashes being so similar, I think every part of this aircraft production going back to day one will be under close examination. Even Boeing workers who are advised not to speak to the press have said they know which one of the three Renton lines built these planes.

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

I will admit, there is a bundle of info in this forum, and elsewhere,  that I have recently waded through and attempted to digest, in an informative manner,  but as a simple minded.retiree, and if I had to call the blame game, I would state  that it appears to be a PILOT knowledge/instructional  based problem.

If, what I have read so far, there was a simple action to regain control of the oscillating aircraft and had the pilots been trained properly and perhaps more emphasis put on a "run-away" MCAS situation then perhaps there would not have been any crashes............and perhaps with documented  cases, concerning the survived cases of run-away MCAS , Boeing may have come up with a fix much earlier.

As I understand, it looks as if , if the MCAS was to blame for both crashes, and  would it not be unreasonable to ask..."Why didn't the pilots just turn off the stab switches and manually trim ?"

To me, this whole affair can be paralleled to building the first airliners and no one thought to teach pilots how to fly into a ditching  until after a couple of airplanes lawn-darted into the wet sky  and  everyone was lost when they could have been saved had the pilots been taught how to do the drill....

I suppose in the end, there will be a reconciliation and someone will "carry the can" but  perhaps there is too much emphasis being put on the "technology will never let you get into a bad situation" mantra ......and we have all seen what that "mantra  trained pilot attitude"  can do in an "electric " airplane.

The ignorance of Boeing to not highlight to operators the MCAS modification on the MAX would be the same as installing the STS system and not bothering to mention it. Having said that, there is no checklist for specific STS annomolies. However, crew awareness of the system helps crews both manage the aircraft in normal operations AND manage system failures, both scripted and unscripted.

It is clear that Boeing never anticipated an AOA failure that would trigger an erroneous MCAS automated response. If they had thought it remotely possible, then redundancy would have been part of system design. That discussion will now include the role of the FAA in type certification, and what information Boeing did and did not provide to the FAA in order to receive that certification.

Layered on top of this is crew experience level (or lack there of).

So many errors. None in isolation is critical. But in aggregate can have tragic consequences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blues deville said:

By series of events over several years I’m referring to it’s 2011 launch and the first flight in 2016 up to today. This new 737 went through multiple development stages with endless decisions being made about its features and design. With these two crashes being so similar, I think every part of this aircraft production going back to day one will be under close examination. Even Boeing workers who are advised not to speak to the press have said they know which one of the three Renton lines built these planes.

so pointing fingers at a specific assembly line for an inherent design flaw?  Take that with a grain of salt.  Manufacturing doesn't work that way.  If that were indeed the case then Boeing would be solely liable for all damages due to lack of quality control.  As it stands they may actually have wiggle room here but they will not get away with it.  There is currently billions of dollars of inventory sitting motionless all over the planet INCLUDING Renton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boestar said:

so pointing fingers at a specific assembly line for an inherent design flaw?  Take that with a grain of salt.  Manufacturing doesn't work that way.  If that were indeed the case then Boeing would be solely liable for all damages due to lack of quality control.  As it stands they may actually have wiggle room here but they will not get away with it.  There is currently billions of dollars of inventory sitting motionless all over the planet INCLUDING Renton.

 

Not a design flaw but perhaps some kind of human error. Also not my words but what the Seattle Times has written after speaking with Boeing plant workers as they arrived on Monday morning.

 

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boestar said:

so pointing fingers at a specific assembly line for an inherent design flaw?  Take that with a grain of salt.  Manufacturing doesn't work that way.  If that were indeed the case then Boeing would be solely liable for all damages due to lack of quality control.  As it stands they may actually have wiggle room here but they will not get away with it.  There is currently billions of dollars of inventory sitting motionless all over the planet INCLUDING Renton.

 

They obviously have issues at their plants, on top of the 737 problems, the U.S. Air Force has stopped taking delivery of the KC-46 over debris left in aircraft.

https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/03/01/air-force-halts-delivery-new-kc-46-tankers-over-debris-inside-aircraft.html

1 Mar 2019

Military.com | By Oriana Pawlyk

The U.S. Air Force has stopped accepting deliveries of its brand-new KC-46 Pegasus tanker only weeks after the first aircraft was transported from manufacturer Boeing Co.'s Washington state facility to McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas.

The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) halted deliveries Feb. 20 because of foreign object debris found in the aircraft, Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Malinda Singleton said Friday. The Seattle Times first reported that the debris, which could damage the aircraft, led to a week-long grounding of the tankers and safety concerns from top service officials.

"The Air Force takes Foreign Object Debris (FOD) contamination very seriously," Singleton said in a statement. "The combined Air Force, Defense Contract Management Agency and Boeing team is working together to resolve these concerns as safely and quickly as possible."

The Air Force will not accept deliveries of the tanker until the production aircraft are cleared, and the service and DCMA have approved a corrective action plan by Boeing "that will prevent FOD in the future," she said.

Related content:

The Air Force took its first delivery of the tanker at McConnell on Jan. 25. According to the Seattle Times, Boeing has delivered six tankers total to McConnell and Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Another delivery was scheduled for Friday.

Roughly 45 more production tankers remain at Boeing in the final stages of completion, the paper said.

According to a management memo from Boeing's factory managers obtained by the Seattle Times, eight tools were found in aircraft delivered to the Military Delivery Center (MDC) at Paine Field, about 25 miles north of Seattle. The MDC approves and completes the aircraft.

All aircraft under construction are supposed to be swept routinely for debris. Loose objects are dangerous because they can cause damage over time.

The MDC declared a "level 3" alert on the assembly line. "Does anyone know what a level four is?" the management memo said, according to the paper’s report. "A level four ... will shut down our factory. This is a big deal."

The Pegasus already had problems.

The Air Force announced last month that it would accept the tanker, based on the 767 airliner, despite the fact it still has deficiencies that Boeing has agreed to fix after delivery.

"We have identified, and Boeing has agreed to fix at its expense, deficiencies discovered in developmental testing of the remote vision system [RVS]," Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Hope Cronin said last month.

The RVS, which is made by Rockwell Collins and permits the in-flight operator to view the refueling system below the tanker, has been subject to frequent software glitches. The first tankers will be delivered despite that problem. The systemic issue, which will require a software and hardware update, may take three to four years to fix, Cronin told Defense News last month.

"The Air Force has mechanisms in place to ensure Boeing meets its contractual obligations while we continue with initial operational testing and evaluation," she said.

The company has contracted for 52 of the 179 tankers the Air Force intends to buy. Boeing is responsible for any cost overruns, which had climbed to $3.5 billion as of October, the company said.

The service awarded Boeing a fixed-price, $4.9 billion contract in 2011. The company was supposed to deliver the initial 18 aerial refueling planes by August 2017.

But with ongoing issues throughout the program since its start in 2013, including design problems in the refueling boom, Boeing and Air Force officials pushed the first delivery to February 2018.

Last March, the service announced that "predicted impacts associated with airworthiness certifications and slower-than-expected flight test execution" would delay delivery to the "latter part of 2018."

Then, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' unexpected exit in December presented yet another problem.

Sources told Defense News and Reuters that Mattis' signature was required to finalize delivery plans. But President Donald Trump's announcement that Mattis would leave by the end of 2018 instead of his planned departure in February caused another delay for the program.

The KC-46 is meant to replace older tanker fleets, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender. The total current inventory of KC-10s and KC-135s sits at 455 aircraft.

The Air Force plans to retire part of its legacy aerial refueling fleet and meet its 479-tanker total force requirement with a mix of KC-46s and KC-135s in the future.

All three tankers are manufactured or have been upgraded by Boeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A return to service by July may be a tad optomistic at least in the EU and Canada.

MARCH 19, 2019 / 4:59 AM / UPDATED 39 MINUTES AGO

Stakes rise for Boeing as EU, Canada step up scrutiny

 

ADDIS ABABA/PARIS (Reuters) - Europe and Canada said they would seek their own guarantees over the safety of Boeing’s 737 MAX, further complicating plans to get the aircraft flying worldwide after they were grounded in the wake of two accidents killing more than 30 people.

As the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) analyses Boeing’s plans for a software fix prompted by the first crash five months ago, the European Union’s aviation safety agency EASA promised its own deep look at any design improvements.

“We will not allow the aircraft to fly if we have not found acceptable answers to all our questions,” EASA Executive Director Patrick Ky told an EU parliament committee hearing.

“This is a personal guarantee that I make in front of you,” he added.

Canada said it would independently certify the 737 MAX in future, rather than accepting FAA validation. It also said it would send a team to help the U.S. authorities evaluate proposed design changes and decide if others were needed.

Boeing declined to comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNBC

Transportation Department seeks audit of FAA’s certification of Boeing 737 Max 8

Published 2 hours ago | Updated Moments Ago
Key Points
  • Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao has asked for a formal audit of the FAA’s approval of Boeing 737 Max 8 planes.
  • Two of the planes have been involved in fatal crashes in less than five months.
  • Chao asked the agency’s inspector general to audit the FAA’s process.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/transportation-secretary-asks-departments-inspector-general-to-audit-faas-certification-of-boeing-737-max.html

memorandum-secretary-audit-certification-boeing-737-max8-2012-2017.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-duty pilot who hitched a ride saved Lion Air 737 day before deadly crash

 

“ As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing Co. 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.

That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, according to two people familiar with Indonesia’s investigation.

The next day, under command of a different crew facing what investigators said was an identical malfunction, the jetliner crashed into the Java Sea killing all 189 aboard.

The previously undisclosed detail on the earlier Lion Air flight represents a new clue in the mystery of how some 737 Max pilots faced with the malfunction have been able to avert disaster while the others lost control of their planes and crashed. The presence of a third pilot in the cockpit wasn’t contained in Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee’s Nov. 28 report on the crash and hasn’t previously been reported.

The so-called dead-head pilot on the earlier flight from Bali to Jakarta told the crew to cut power to the motor driving the nose down, according to the people familiar, part of a checklist that all pilots are required to memorize.”

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/off-duty-pilot-who-hitched-a-ride-saved-lion-air-737-day-before-deadly-crash

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also unfortunate that not one of the three company pilots communicated the full details of the unusual event. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
March 20, 2019 4:50 am
Updated: March 20, 2019 4:51 am

Lion Air voice recorder details pilots’ frantic search for fix before fatal plane crash: sources

By Cindy Silviana, Jamie Freed, Tim Hepher Reuters

The pilots of a doomed Lion Air Boeing 737 MAX scoured a handbook as they struggled to understand why the jet was lurching downwards, but ran out of time before it hit the water, three people with knowledge of the cockpit voice recorder contents said.

The investigation into the crash, which killed all 189 people on board in October, has taken on new relevance as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other regulators grounded the model last week after a second deadly crash in Ethiopia.

READ MORE: Ethiopian Airlines black box data shows ‘clear similarities’ with Lion Air crash, ministry says

Investigators examining the Indonesian crash are considering how a computer ordered the plane to dive in response to data from a faulty sensor and whether the pilots had enough training to respond appropriately to the emergency, among other factors.

It is the first time the voice recorder contents from the Lion Air flight have been made public. The three sources discussed them on condition of anonymity.

Reuters did not have access to the recording or transcript.

A cockpit voice recorder, the second black box of Lion Air flight 610, is taken out of water by Indonesian personnel in Karawang, West Java province of Indonesia, Jan. 14, 2019.

Zulkarnain/Xinhua via ZUMA Wire

The captain was at the controls of Lion Air flight JT610 when the nearly new jet took off from Jakarta, and the first officer was handling the radio, according to a preliminary report issued in November.

Just two minutes into the flight, the first officer reported a “flight control problem” to air traffic control and said the pilots intended to maintain an altitude of 5,000 feet, the November report said.

READ MORE: Chilling video captures final moments of Lion Air passengers

The first officer did not specify the problem, but one source said airspeed was mentioned on the cockpit voice recording, and a second source said an indicator showed a problem on the captain’s display but not the first officer’s.

The captain asked the first officer to check the quick reference handbook, which contains checklists for abnormal events, the first source said.

WATCH: Crashed Lion Air jet was “not airworthy” on prior flight

LionAir_848x480_1382700099907.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

For the next nine minutes, the jet warned pilots it was in a stall and pushed the nose down in response, the report showed. A stall is when the airflow over a plane’s wings is too weak to generate lift and keep it flying.

The captain fought to climb, but the computer, still incorrectly sensing a stall, continued to push the nose down using the plane’s trim system. Normally, trim adjusts an aircraft’s control surfaces to ensure it flies straight and level.

“They didn’t seem to know the trim was moving down,” the third source said. “They thought only about airspeed and altitude. That was the only thing they talked about.”

Boeing declined to comment on Wednesday because the investigation was ongoing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing makes personnel changes in wake of 737 crashes

  • 20 March, 2019
  • SOURCE: Flight Dashboard
  • BY: Greg Waldron
  • Singapore

Boeing has implemented changes among its top engineering team as it works to deal with the fallout of two recent crashes and subsequent grounding of the 737 Max 8.

John Hamilton has been named chief engineer, whereas previously he was both a vice-president and chief engineer. In his changed role, he will focus on the crash investigations into Lion Air flight JT610, which crashed on 29 October 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302, which crashed on 10 March.

"In this capacity, Hamilton is responsible for bringing the necessary engineering resources and capabilities together from across the company to work through the major accident investigations and other technical risks impacting Commercial Airplanes products and businesses," says the company's website.

Close X

The twin disasters claimed a total of 346 lives, with the Ethiopian crash sparking a global grounding of the world’s 737 Max fleet.

Lynne Hopper has also moved to the vice-president of engineering role, having previously led Boeing Test & Evaluation.

Until the middle of 2013, says the Boeing site, Hamilton was the vice-president/chief project engineer for the 737 programme. This position covered design integrity, strategy, and compliance with Boeing and regulatory standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this