care to prove this? Who was the Boeing accident investigation rep? Who was the chief pilot at the time? Bet you don’t know anything and are just repeating a rumor you heard in the head.


oh, and by all means please add the proof that Boeing knew what the problem was and didn’t feel like fixing it. You must be confused with Airbus and the Thales pitot tubes.

It's very well known history, but far enough back to not reflect on anyone currently employed today. It is in fact not even the same company (pre MD takeover). But it's history that needs to not be forgotten, or it will keep happening.

Are you talking about crash in the atlantic? Airbus and regulators had already issued the bulletin/AD. The accident airplane was literally scheduled to get the parts replaced after the accident flight.

I would like to think that it was a “Ready, Fire Aim” moment, rather than thinking the consequences through to its logical effective conclusion, prior to pressing the submit button. Ooops?!?! Brain F@rt.

You might want to research the timeline on this. Your off a bit. The crash was in 2009.

An Airbus memo from July 2002 warns of blocked drainage holes on the Thales AA Pitot — the type fitted onto the doomed Air France jet — and says "this issue can affect all Airbus aircraft fitted with Thales Pitot probes."

Airbus recommended replacing Thales Pitots with a newer model in 2007 but did not make the change mandatory. And Air France decided to replace Pitots on its longer range Airbus fleet only when they broke down.

Air France says it started having problems with speed-measuring equipment on long-range Air France A330 and A340 jets in May 2008, which Airbus blamed on ice crystals blocking Pitot tubes. But functioning sensors were not replaced at that stage.

…..
 

Distastful,Ill timed-yes

offense meant-no

brainfart-prob yes

Jab directed more at the faa and Boeing-yes
(You may or may not know that this pylon problem isn’t a new issue).

Apologies all around to those offended.



full stop.

Your unconditional and unwavering loyalty to the 737 and Boeing is commendable in some respect…While at the same time, also stubbornly sad.

There was some bureaucratic churn over the issue. I did a deep dive some years ago while flying the bus and read some official reports. I'm too lazy to google those for you but the wikipedia summary matches what I recall...

"When it was introduced in 1994, the Airbus A330 was equipped with pitot tubes, part number 0851GR, manufactured by Goodrich Sensors and Integrated Systems. A 2001 Airworthiness Directive (AD) required these to be replaced with either a later Goodrich design, part number 0851HL, or with pitot tubes made by Thales, part number C16195AA.[232] Air France chose to equip its fleet with the Thales pitot tubes. In September 2007, Airbus recommended that Thales C16195AA pitot tubes should be replaced by Thales model C16195BA to address the problem of water ingress that had been observed.[233] Since it was not an AD, the guidelines allowed the operator to apply the recommendations at its discretion. Air France implemented the change on its A320 fleet, on which the incidents of water ingress were observed, and decided to do so in its A330/340 fleet only when failures started to occur in May 2008.[234][235]After discussing these issues with the manufacturer, Air France sought a means of reducing these incidents, and Airbus indicated that the new pitot probe designed for the A320 was not designed to prevent cruise-level ice-over. In 2009, tests suggested that the new probe could improve its reliability, prompting Air France to accelerate the replacement program,[235] which started on 29 May. F-GZCP was scheduled to have its pitot tubes replaced as soon as it returned to Paris.[236] By 17 June 2009, Air France had replaced all pitot probes on its A330 type aircraft.[237]

In July 2009, Airbus issued new advice to A330 and A340 operators to exchange Thales pitot tubes for tubes from Goodrich."



My takeaway was that airbus identified and tried to solve the problem. Air France was in the process of complying but maybe not with intense urgency. Neither tried to deny or cover up that there was a problem to avoid having to fix it, they were just bureaucratic in the method.

Was the problem under-estimated based on *assumptions* about lowest common denominator (low time Bunkie) pilot skill level? Maybe.

Caveat: Not claiming that wiki is the end all be all, if you know of better contradicting sources I'm all ears.

I'm legitimately curious and have never hear this before. Obviously the rudder issues were not understood or ignored, do you have any links that discuss Boeing's alternate theories?

There are multiple references in the Wikipedia article regarding 427 and Boeing and the FAA trying to push accountability from the rudder to pilots. It’s only natural for Boeing to try to play the blame game to get away from liability rather than own up to mistakes especially from a legal standpoint. This is corporate America, it is expected.

“Boeing felt that the test results were unrealistic and inapplicable, given the extremes under which the valve was tested. It stated that the cause of the rudder reversal was more likely psychological and likened the event to a circumstance in which an automobile driver panics during an accident and accidentally presses on the gas pedal rather than the brake pedal. The official position of the FAA was that sufficient probable cause did not exist to substantiate the possibility of rudder system failure.”

The 737 was not grounded after USAir 427.