FAA shuts down Florida firm that supplied faulty sensor

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has shut down Xtra Aerospace of Miramar, Florida, the company that supplied a faulty sensor to Lion Air that triggered the deadly 2018 crash of a 737 Max, killing 189 people.

The regulator’s revocation of Xtra’s aviation repair station certificate, announced Friday, means Xtra is out of business.

Late Friday, Xtra issued a statement saying that “we respectfully disagree with the agency’s findings.” It added that the revocation of its certificate “is not an indication that Xtra was responsible for the accident.”

The news came the same day that the final investigation report into the Lion Air accident was released Friday by the National Transportation Safety Committee of Indonesia, known by its Indonesian acronym KNKT.

https://www.heraldnet.com/business/faa-shuts-down-florida-firm-that-supplied-faulty-sensor/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=21829678fc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-21829678fc-228635337

[Sherman A1]

1. How about shutting down the Seattle Firm that

supplied a poorly designed aircraft needing this stupid sensor and afterthought software?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Sure let's put thousands people out of work

Welcome to ignore.

[Sherman A1]

4. And the folks who designed a bad aircraft get off Scott Free

While the folks in Florida who have just as much right to a job as anyone get scapegoated. Yeah, that’s justice......

And go ignore yourself......

[Blue_true]

15. You have a good point.

If the aircraft was properly designed, one sensor could not have caused the tragedy.

I think the other poster was overly dramatic, but that DU member has a point also. Shutting down Boeing's plane manufacturing would do serious damage to a deep blue area of a blue state.

I think both firms (Boeing and the Florida firm) should face stiff penalties, but I am not sure shutting either down is the right approach.

[Sherman A1]

18. No, neither should be shut down

I do believe that in both cases their lives should be filled with lawyers for a very, very long time and the 737s in question should be scrapped in place as they are simply not airworthy.

[Blue_true]

20. Reasonable points.

Boeing should be going through a rigorous redesign evaluation now and simulate the design under a large number of conditions. If that evaluation shows that the MAX 737 concept must be scrapped, then that should be the case.

The 737 has a pretty legendary flying record, first the original 737 and then the Stretch Version 737, have enviable safety records. Boeing tried to push it farther with the MAX version (as an engineer, anytime I hear "max" in a description, I take a closer look, looking for problems, generally some are always present).

[burrowowl]

23. I agree

[abqtommy]

13. What a choice! Put thousands a people out of work by bankrupting a corrupt aircraft manufacturer

or save thousands of lives by bankrupting a corrupt aircraft manufacturer and putting the executives in prison. I'll go with saving thousands of lives for $500, Alec! BTW, I'm handy using ignore but I don't think the previous comment warrants that.

[Blue_true]

16. My ignore list has a grand total of zero people in it.

I am really proud of that fact.

[PJMcK]

3. Great idea

(Sarcasm)

[Sherman A1]

5. So the poorly designed aircraft is okay with you?

[PJMcK]

6. Of course not

Your proposition to put Boeing out of business is a silly idea.

Consider that Boeing has built hundreds of thousands of aircraft and employs tens of thousands of people. Do you think shutting them down will solve the problems with the 737 Max? And what do you think will happen to all of those employees— and ancillary suppliers—when Boeing is shut down?

I get it: you’re pissed that the plane has problems. Consider the broader implications of your idea and its effect on the broader economy.

[Sherman A1]

7. SO shutting down the supplier of the faulty part is okay?

Those jobs don't count......


Okay I get it. The big guy screws up, it's all good, the little guy, not so much.....

The employees at the smaller company's jobs, hey they aren't important. Just if you work at a big company.

Consider the implications of that...

[PJMcK]

9. I did reference the ancillary suppliers (n/t)

[Stinky The Clown]

14. This is why liberals often look silly.

There are legal remedies, but they take time. Boeing has more than 125,000 US employees, with operations in all 50 states. Probably at least that many more in businesses that supply parts and support. So yeah, shut 'em down. That'll show 'em, by gosh, by golly.

They let the Max team's leadership go. Bet you didn't know that. I think the CEO should also be gone, but who knows.

But calling for their shut down? Really? How would you get that done?

[Sherman A1]

17. Why should the firm that made the sensor be shut down?

Are they just being thrown under the bus? I guess it's okay for them because they don't have 125K employees, but then they didn't put together a faulty design to foist upon the flying public, they just built a supposedly bad sensor.

What is good for the goose........?

Yes, I did know that the Max team leadership has been changed. Changing leadership does not address stretching a mid 1960s design to do more than it is capable of doing.

The fault starts with the design of the aircraft, not the sensor or the MCAS software that was supposed to both in their own way overcome an unstable design created by moving the more fuel efficient engines forward on lengthen pylons from the wings because the 737 sets to low to the ground as opposed to the Airbus with which it was designed to compete. This modification changed the center of gravity on the airframe.

And a couple of points, No I don't want Boeing shut down. I also don't think the firm that made the sensor is blameless, but why should one be shut down and not the other?

As to looking silly, well I believe in fairness, perhaps that is a silly thing in your opinion but I will live with it.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Do you know the details of the shutdown?

No, I didn't think so. Neither do I. I'll wait to learn why before offering a remedy.

[Sherman A1]

22. Seems to be in the OP

https://www.heraldnet.com/business/faa-shuts-down-florida-firm-that-supplied-faulty-sensor/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=21829678fc-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-21829678fc-228635337

[VMA131Marine]

26. Xtra Aerospace didn't make the sensor

They refurbished it as a previously used unit. The FAA found that the reconditioned sensor had been improperly calibrated to read 21 degrees to high and that Xtra did not include a verification step in their process that could have caught the incorrect calibration.

This is all in the article.

[Blue_true]

19. "The let the MAX team's leadership go".

They found a scapegoat, not that the person or people didn't deserve to be fired.

As a corporate engineer most of my working career, I have some insight on what happens with projects. The project leader, typically a non-engineering VP or GM, get great recognition for bringing in a big project ahead of schedule and under cost projections, the bigger both the better per corporate. The voices of engineers and even managers that disagree get silenced, not being a team player gets regularly tossed around. At "completion" of a project, the upper echelon get promotions and "God" status, you have better not been one of the dissenting voices, even if accurate. For one thing, proving that the dissent is accurate often requires teams with members that have specific skills, a team that engineering upper management is unlikely to approve because for big projects, thst can run into $ hundreds of thousands or $$ millions to put together simulations and do testing and data collection. So voices get ignored. Then the shit hit the fan, engineering gets looked at first as the scapegoat, but if engineering upper management has it's head out of it's ass, it queries lower engineers, including dissenting voices and turn back the blame attemp. So corporate high management move up the foodchain looking for heads to roll. In this case the project management got the axe, but I can promise you, there were plenty of higher up people that should have lost their jobs.

[Takket]

8. The sensor was faulty? I thought it was Boeing's software that caused the crashes?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. I believe a bit of both

Plus a lack of redundancy.

[Disaffected]

11. Sensors will fault:

Software and operational procedures should always take that into account. Making a single sensor reading mission critical was a major failure on Boeing's part, actually quite inexplicable.

They should not be shut down but deserve serious hurt over this. Criminal negligence causing death?

[Sherman A1]

12. It was a the original cobbled together design

placing the more fuel efficient engines on extended pylons changing the center of gravity on the aircraft. The sensor and software were fixes to a bad initial stretch beyond what a 1960's vintage aircraft could reasonably do. The problem lies in the engineering and the attempt by Boeing to cut corners at what appears to be every step of the development.

[burrowowl]

24. Yes cobbled together is the right word