jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm sure you've heard about how Boeing tried to save money and wound-up crashing planes. Well, this practice goes back over thirty years. The early 737s had a problem with the ruder control mechanism, and three planes crashed as a result, with total loss of life. Boeing blamed the weather for one and pilot error for another. The authorities didn't accept that, but the destruction was so total that they couldn't determine the cause. Two other planes experienced the same lack of control, but the pilots were able to recover.

Boeing knew all along why those planes crashed. "We have a problem," was a message sent from one Boeing executive to another. They knew what had caused those crashes, but they blamed them on the weather and the pilots. Years passed as they try to decide what to do, never letting on to what had caused the fatal crashes. They made up a chart of the possible solutions, listing the negatives of each fix. They eventually settled on a solution: drag out the replacement of the part for years. That was the cheapest way to go.

Eventually, authorities determined that the defective part had caused the problems, and that part was replaced, but it took years to get it done. Penalties for Boeing? Surely, you jest.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rudder+problem+with+737-200&oq=rudder+problem+with+737-200&aqs=edge..69i57j0i546l4.22671j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

BebuLamar

I knew about the 3 accidents which the NTSB couldn't determine the cause of the first 2 because everyone was killed although they did test the suspected servo valve. The third one the pilot could recover and they tested the valve again after freezing it and it malfunctioned. I didn't know about Boeing knew why but blamed it on the pilot or weather.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There was one problem that occurred during take-off, but the pilot was able to return to the terminal. They gave that one the name of the pilot - Martin? A 747 had a similar problem but I think that returned and was repaired.

Bmarsh Loc: Bellaire, MI

On what do you suggest that Boeing knew about the problem? Just watched the "Air Disasters" show on this. I very much doubt that Boeing would have ignored the problem if they knew all along. Even the manufacturer of the servo ran many tests and couldn't produce the failure.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Boeing knew about the problem before the first fatal crash. They also knew about the problems with MCAS in the 737 Max that caused fatal crashes. Again, denial. The rudder control problem was intermittent, so it was difficult to discover.

Ignoring and denying is the name of the game. Look at M-D and the cargo hatch door. Lives don't matter; money matters.

BebuLamar

Of course Boeing knew about the MCAS but except from you Jerry I never heard that Boeing knew about the hard rudder over problem caused by the Parker hydraulic servo valve.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

I am not a Boeing expert or even an ex-employee but have lived in Seattle for nearly 50 years. So I have seen many newspaper articles and news reports about Boeing. Two observations:

1. When Boeing moved its corporate headquarters to Chicago it had a significant impact on the culture of Boeing and its professionalism.
2. The merger with McDonald-Douglas and the promotion of the M-D CEO to CEO of Boeing shifted Boeing from being an engineer driven firm to a firm focused on cost cutting, maximizing profits and ROI.

The combination of these two events had a impact certainly on the 737 MAX issue.

Bmarsh Loc: Bellaire, MI

The servo problem had to do with a very cold servo (due to temps at high altitudes) being fed warm hydraulic fluid suddenly. Not too possible on takeoff and hard to repeat in tests.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

And yet...

Bmarsh Loc: Bellaire, MI

The 'problem' with MCAS was not so much MCAS itself but the fact that Boeing never told the pilots about it or how to deal with it. Yes, Boeings fault.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

Everyone knows you don't like aircraft Jerry and you don't like to fly. Think about how many aircraft Boeing has developed all these years, and the small number of accidents that they are responsible for. Testing new aircraft is a dangerous job, but when they find problems and fix them , think about how many have been saved. If a lot of those aircraft didn't fly safely you would have to wait a long, long time to get all the things you order on the internet.

KillroyII Loc: Middle Georgia

They have had friends in high places… don’t know how much that helps them in avoiding blame for crashes/deaths but it sure helps them in the military procurements. You can win on a competitive bid for the military then have it overturned… after the award is announced… with influential people involved in pressuring the military… and have the contract taken away from you.

CaltechNerd Loc: Whittier, CA, USA

I worked for Boeing from 1967 to 1970. It had just lost out on a very lucrative fighter jet contract because Boeing engineers knew it had to be a titanium body and Lockheed underbid us by a lot by bidding a stainless steel plane. They started work, then a year later announcing that they'd have to switch to titanium. And upping the price to more than the Boeing bid. And of course the Pentagon let them keep the contract. Cheaters prosper, honest companies are losers.

When McDonald Douglas management took over Boeing they made sure that profits were king and integrity/good engineering an afterthought.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio