Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ramshock, Mar 10, 2019.
Southwestern didnt want to have to pay to retrain their pilots.
Canada has grounded the Max 8 based on some information they received this morning. I'm a bit more satisfied that some reasonable comparative evidence was used in the decision but still eagerly await the analysis of both crashes to determine the root cause.
I addressed Southwest earlier in the thread.
Why are you so invested in this? You in the industry?
No, I just always enjoy a good joke about Southwest.
My reluctance was based on the circumstantial evidence used to make the decision and the high likelihood that most of the decisions were based on public pressure from people that we know are, for the most part, cretins who couldn't even tell you what scientific principles actually get the planes they ride on into the air. (not saying that about anyone in this thread).
False on the bolded. You can't lobby the FAA (an organization which takes pride in it's relative separation). You're talking about the decisions of aviation and engineering experts being overrode by a phone call to Trump.
As of this instant I'm sure Boeing's DERs are running helter skelter to respond to any FAA inquiries, that won't be subverted by public pressure. And it shouldn't be, the public just isn't rational about aviation safety.
Yes but Dwayne, 2 fatal accidents within 5 months for a brand new plane? That goes beyond reasonable doubt for me. There hasnt been anything like this since the DC 10.
Do you have shares in Boeing? Im genuinely curious.
Can't speak for him
I work for a big 3 jet engine manufacturer.
Whats your favourite plane to fly in?
Definitely the A380. I got in the cockpit of a 747 as a kid though, so that one's up there.
You ever seen a grown man naked?
A380 cockpit looks like the USS Enterprise compared to the 747. Joke aside, it's sad that 380's days are numbered now.
Btw, are you an engineer?
the A380 has been a flop though right? What were Airbus thinking?
I was walking home one day, and this man came up to me and said hi, unbuttoned his shirt and started playing with his nipple.
I was 19. Hope this helps
Yep. Studied AeroEng in Uni
It did unfortunately. The change in route preferences fecked them over. Engineering wise it's a fantastic plane IMO.
The FAA's own internal inquiry on the DC10 found their actions to have been "questionable", with things like corners being cut on safety certification and a gentleman's agreement in place with McDonnell Douglas over the schedule for fixing the problems.
Before he joined them, the current head of the FAA worked for the biggest airline trade association in the US, one of the main aerospace manufacturing associations, and American Airlines. The current heads of the UK CAA, EASA and Australian CASA had nothing to do with aviation before they joined.
You may have seen the math I did earlier in the thread. It's a 1 in 100,000 occurrence. Seems reasonable to conclude that a design fault is not the issue.
Not that I'm aware of. I do have some index funds but as a Canadian I'm forced to have the majority of my holdings in the Toronto Stock Exchange.
so that's that then. Currently they are only operating in the States and Canada.
No we (Canada) grounded them just before lunchtime.
fixed for you.
Cheers. Puts even more pressure on the FAA.
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Someone putting pressure on Trumpty.
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Why is trump taking this into his own hands? The regulatory authorities are the ones who should be making this decision, not some thick president.
Apparently the FAA will be making a statement shortly.
Why would Boeing tell the press about the changes they're going to make to the software to mitigate these issues, if the issues weren't there in the first place?
The whole MAX fleet had now been grounded on advice from Boeing.
Boeing said it "continues to have full confidence in the safety of the 737 Max".
However, it said that after consultation with the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board - which is conducting an investigation into the Ethiopian Airlines crash - it had decided to ground the flights "out of an abundance of caution and in order to reassure the flying public of the aircraft's safety".
Design effectiveness and operating effectiveness are two different things. To me, this is an operating effectiveness issue. The system may be designed well enough but in operation, the performers may encounter situations where they cannot execute the function without failures.
Ouch. That's going to be expensive.
Given the vague nature of the problem (at the moment) I can see them grounded for a very long time.
Why the AOA corrective software then?
Autopilot systems are designed to keep planes airborne. Crashes like this seem to happen when the pilot and the auto pilot disagree on what's really happening.
It's ironic that you talk about circumstantial evidence but you actually don't know what evidence they had. Your reaction was to assume that they're going off public outrage, your whole premise could be complete nonsense.
What's the importance of the distinction, in this case? The system is designed and delivered in a way which increases the likelihood of a specific issue during take off, and it appears to have been an unusually common and evidently quite dangerous issue. If they can't execute the function, why is that not a significant problem which justifies the cautious response?
1 to 5 billion to ground them for 3 months in terms of expectation. Not that much of an issue for Boeing who post revenues or circa 100b yearly.
The bigger issue would be to undermine the confidence in their aircrafts. Their stock had seen a major hit since the crash plummeting with 11%.
Separate names with a comma.