But the good thing is you don't try to play one online.

Too easy.

You don't need to be an aviation expert if you understand basic engineering, basic physics and are able to read technical documentation with comprehension. Do you think the Boeing doomsayers are also aviation experts? That seems unlikely as most of the analysis from that side is filled with emotional responses to a tragic loss of life. Understandable but not helpful.

 

Too easy.

Yes it was. Did my earlier post hit too close to home? Or is your reply another form of something being said quite often on the news these days, "consciousness of guilt"?

 

Yes it was. Did my earlier post hit too close to home? Or is your reply another form of something being said quite often on the news these days, "consciousness of guilt"?

Yes, I'm quaking in my boots after your demonstration of impeccable logic.

 

I'm just glad you can add aircraft design along with spy to your resume.

 

I'm just glad you can add aircraft design along with spy to your resume.

Just stop it, I know you're infatuated but this is embarrassing. No more hugs today.
The difference is I could have been an aircraft designer if I had chosen that path in my youth instead of pursuing other things. I loved airplanes and rockets as a kid, still do so and try to dig deep into aviation stories.

Actual ELINT spying is a lot more than the James Bond movies you've watched to make an uninformed assessment as usual. On the technical side it's boring ass endless work in dark rooms with people translating endless speeches from the likes of Fidel Castro and other people in dark rooms sending that useless drivel to places like Ft. Meade.

 

 

Just stop it, I know you're infatuated but this is embarrassing. No more hugs today.

But your my hero! I want to be just like you when I grow up. Used to want to be a fireman, but now that's all changed.Now I want to be an internet expert.

 

But your my hero! I want to be just like you when I grow up. Used to want to be a fireman, but now that's all changed.Now I want to be an internet expert.

That's your one hug for today, now back to sleep my little bambino.

 

That's your one hug for today, now back to sleep my little bambino.

The comebacks just get better.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...ng-sacrificed-safety?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Scrutiny of the Max has also exposed the almost fraternal relationship between Boeing and its regulator, the FAA. The 1958 act that established the agency allowed it to hand off many aspects of the certification process to Boeing and other manufacturers. In 2009 the system was expanded further, allowing Boeing to directly choose and supervise the employees who vouch for safety as authorized FAA representatives.
...
It isn’t assured that the Max’s prospects will recover as fast as Boeing and investors expect, Barclays Capital analyst David Strauss wrote on May 7, citing a survey of fliers suggesting that almost half will be unwilling to fly on the Max for a year or more. The same day, Carter Copeland of Melius Research wrote to investors that the most consequential outcome of the Max crisis might be the end of a system that’s helped save both Airbus and Boeing time and money—the FAA’s approval of “heavily modified” aircraft as extensions of previous designs. If the agency were forced to consider them as “clean sheets,” he wrote, it would as add long as two years (and additional cost) to their development timelines.

 

I’ve been wondering if there are any parallels between these Max problems and the ill fated DC10. In the DC10 case some crashes due to the cargo doors and then a final one where an engine fell off led to the FAA pulling it’s certification. After lots of investigating and reengineering the DC10 was flying again but passengers avoided it. I had read at the time that it was actually safer than new since every part of it had been carefully studied. The DC10 was shifted to cargo service and is being used for that today.

I suppose Boeing knows all this. I would hope for the stockholders sake that a complete new design is underway while the company wages a rearguard action to buy time. Sticking to this Max design could be fatal to the company.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...face-questions-over-boeings-737-max-airliner/

https://www.wsj.com/.../faa-saw-737-max-flight-control-system-as-non-critical-safety-ris..

 

I’ve been wondering if there are any parallels between these Max problems and the ill fated DC10. In the DC10 case some crashes due to the cargo doors and then a final one where an engine fell off led to the FAA pulling it’s certification. After lots of investigating and reengineering the DC10 was flying again but passengers avoided it. I had read at the time that it was actually safer than new since every part of it had been carefully studied. The DC10 was shifted to cargo service and is being used for that today.

I suppose Boeing knows all this. I would hope for the stockholders sake that a complete new design is underway while the company wages a rearguard action to buy time. Sticking to this Max design could be fatal to the company.

I suspect that the 737 Max may be 'repurposed" from a passenger plant to freight and rebranded to a different model that won't catch public attention.

 

Excuse me. Wasn't ISO manufacturing and managing procedures and certifications suppose to prevent this kind of thing?

Not just for safety, and quality, but for the thoroughness of upgrades and improvements.....OR any changes for that matter. Any change, in procedure is hard to do under ISO, it's worst than congress.

I know it was hell to live with......any deviation from the norm.....was always a huge headache and took many reviews and approvals.

Look at the on-going billions spent for compliance to ISO.......has it ever paid off?

 

Not just for safety, and quality, but for the thoroughness of upgrades and improvements.....OR any changes for that matter. Any change, in procedure is hard to do under ISO, it's worst than congress.

Just another example of why regulations matter. No matter what fox says. Greed always out weighs morals.

 

Just another example of why regulations matter. No matter what fox says. Greed always out weighs morals.

As recently demonstrated by the VW diesel scandal. One difference is that some defended the VW engineers because, well, fast cars are good and pollution doesn’t matter. At least in this case no one has defended Boeing based on the coolness of the plane.

 

A failed sensor caused 2 modern aircraft to nosedive into the ground killing everyone on board? Now-a-days, with computers talking to computers doing the actual flying, it seems a software glitch was responsible for the tragedies and not a clogged up pitot tube as everyone thinks. This has happened to other systems but with less tragic consequences. My money is on the software glitch, not a failed sensor.
There is a whole cacophony of software problems that have killed people on U tube; check it out!
As of 6/27, A microprocessor is deemed the villian (read software glitch) in the 737 max crashes.
This should be a warning for all transportation manufacturers. ie; perfect software does not exis
Addendum: For the month of Jan 2021, another 737 (not max) but looks the same; ie; engines forward, has nosedived into the ocean killing everyone on board. It appears the problems associated with the 737 max are still around in spite of monumental efforts to fix. I submit we are at a new threshold in aviation safety; "the not understandable problem."


Cheers, DPW [ Even my new Ford F-150 has occasional quirks which require shutting off engine and re-starting...luckily my Ford doesn't fly. Everything has limitations, and I hate limitations.]

 

A failed sensor caused 2 modern aircraft to nosedive into the ground killing everyone on board?

Yes, the sensor failure started a chain of events that can result in a unrecoverable nosedive at low altitude.

It's sad but not shocking that machines break and kill people.
https://www.avgeekery.com/jal-flight-123-when-a-seven-year-old-shoddy-repair-job-brought-down-a-747/

 

Yes, the sensor failure started a chain of events that can result in a unrecoverable nosedive at low altitude.

It's sad but not shocking that machines break and kill people.
https://www.avgeekery.com/jal-flight-123-when-a-seven-year-old-shoddy-repair-job-brought-down-a-747/

Talk about a horrible event! :

After clipping a wing on one ridge and slamming into a second ridge, JA8119 impacted the ground inverted at coordinates 36°0′5″N, 138°41′38″E and 5,135 feet up on Osutaka Ridge near Mount Takamagahara, Ueno, Gunma Prefecture, 62 miles from Tokyo. Some passengers survived the crash but died of their injuries on the scene.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...pilots-skills-flying-hours-safety/1219147001/