Shit that happens with Airlines, thread
- Thread starter KenW449
- Start date
Not just bad regulation, some really bad engineering.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
Ok...so what did you have in your groin, exactly?
Do you have the required clearance and the need to know?
Nothing to see here - move along.
We can only hope some Boeing big wig will do jail time.
I think we should send Boeing itself to jail. It's only logical since the Supreme Court has told us repeatedly that corporations are people too.
Last edited:
Delta just cancelled my 9am flight and replaced it with a 6am. UNACCEPTABLE
Christ, that's terrifying. Boeing is in a lot of trouble.....
I fucking hope so.
Quite a few human factors failures are starting to show. It shouldn't require exceptional skills to figure out what is going on and fix the problem, like letting go of the elevator while trying to re-trim, that's just completely opposite of how anyone is going to react in a critical situation with the ground coming up.
So, the flight from SLC to JXN was on an Airbus 319-100.
Impressively nice airplane...pretty roomy in steerage, brand new electronics, enjoyable experience compared to the old shitty planes that usually do that run.
Impressively nice airplane...pretty roomy in steerage, brand new electronics, enjoyable experience compared to the old shitty planes that usually do that run.
Hey hey hey Mr Boeing I said
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48172777
Also it turns out Boeing was fully aware the 737max was a problem a year before the crashes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48174797?ocid=socialflow_twitter
Bring on the lawsuits.
That sounds a lot like a maintenance issue not a Boeing issue. Just sayin.
No, that sounds like a crew issue:
Airplane can have a deactivated TR all damn day long, it's a perfectly acceptable thing to defer and address at another time. I don't know how it works in a 737, but on the airplanes I work on there is generally a note saying that with an inop TR a specific minimum landing distance is spelled out. Someone didn't read their Minimum Equipment List, were I to hazard a guess.
Yes, landing distances (which crews have to calculate prior to landing and which dispatchers have to ensure are adequate prior to release) are predicated on no thrust-reversers. It is usually permissible to have them inoperative and fly the plane, assuming the approved procedures are followed for securing/disabling them. It is also possible to use one thrust reverser and get some reverse thrust to help with deceleration, such as in the case of a one-engine landing. If done appropriate, it doesn't kick you off the runway. A nearly 8000 foot runway should be plenty of distance, however with TR inoperative, it would be advisable to set autobrakes to a higher level. Consider that Alaska airlines flies 737s all day here in Alaska to 5000 and 6000' runways and somehow they don't go off the end every other month like some of the lower 48 carriers. Interestingly, their safey culture wasn't always this way, it was in most ways the polar opposite of this 30 years ago, but at some point they realized that to stay in business, you need to do it right and not have accidents. So it is possible to do this, but you have to do it right every time. You have to touch down at the right spot at the right speed and if you are too fast or not going to make the spot, you go around and try again (or go to your alternate airport). This reeks of gross incompetence at this point, landing with a 15 knot tailwind significantly above Vref. You can get a little lazy with tailwinds sometimes with turboprops because even without reversing the propeller pitch angle, when they go flat to "beta" it's still a massive amount of drag and you slow down pretty fast, it's way faster with reverse pitch and jets simply cannot compete here. The crew should be well aware what their minimum landing distance is, regulations usually require something like 160% of the manufacturer's stated numbers and this is something procedurally you verify before attempting landing.
Last edited: