81–90 of 304 posts
By now its safe to assume that most pilot will know about this specific issue and know how to handle it. Well, except those Ethiopian pilot. I don't see reason to ban.
Wow, I cannot believe your conclusion is that "most pilot will know about this specific issue and know how to handle it"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand about the issue so far, the systemic flaw is not in the aircraft, but in the training of the pilots. Or the lack thereof. Boeing wanted the 737 MAX to be considered just another 737 that didn't require any new training, but there are apparently significant changes compared to other 737 models that leave pilots feeling ill-prepared.
Perhaps I haven't followed the news closely enough, but wasn't the Ethiopian plane also spewing excess smoke at the time of the crash? If so, wouldn't that suggest a failure mode other than the one that's viewed as a training issue?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-witness...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Government is sadly conflicted. FAA claiming there is "no evidence" of this aircraft having a systemic flaw. Meanwhile: Boeing brought $70B into Washington State's economy in one year. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeingrsquos-economic-... Boeing is a major defense contractor, providing transportation, weapons, and other supplies to the US Military.
Kleptocracy kills. The current "admin" is full of Boeing people. Also, there's no one doing anything at the FAA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand about the issue so far, the systemic flaw is not in the aircraft, but in the training of the pilots. Or the lack thereof. Boeing wanted the 737 MAX to be considered just another 737 that didn't require any new training, but there are apparently significant changes compared to other 737 models that leave pilots feeling ill-prepared.
Perhaps I haven't followed the news closely enough, but wasn't the Ethiopian plane also spewing excess smoke at the time of the crash? If so, wouldn't that suggest a failure mode other than the one that's viewed as a training issue?
See, eg, " Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident" https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&co....
A plane crash is a very fast, horrifying tragedy to witness. It shouldn't be surprising that peoples' imperfect memories afterwards are completely scrambled
Having read many commments on HN and elsewhere since the crash, I know I’m in the minority here when I say this but to me it seems like the US airlines and FAA are following their procedures, the same procedures that make the US airlines the safest in the world, while the rest of the world is, I don’t quite want to use the word panicking, but at least giving into pressure from people who aren’t aviation safety expert…
Where do you people _get_ these ideas?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a truism. You're kind of ignoring their point though, which was that the data existed and was readily available. Internet forums may be "jumping to conclusion" but regulators have had this data for days, and didn't act on it. They only acted after regulators in Europe and elsewhere acted first.
Maybe the operative word is validated, then.
For such an intermittent bug in a safety-critical application, how do you even begin fixing it when reproducibility might be a 1 in 500,000 likelihood? (Obviously I'm not in software testing, but I'm curious how one approaches this problem.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada is extremely tightly tied to the US economy, and the US government is still taking Boeing’s side on this. I wish this didn’t have to be about politics.
> Canada is extremely tightly tied to the US economy Canada also is home to one of the four major aerospace companies that make planes people are willing to fly on. Think of all the CRJ700s you could sell if people got flighty about using 737s. I'm sure the Canadians are grounding them for all the right reasons, but let's be clear: they stand to gain if the 737 loses favour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Government is sadly conflicted. FAA claiming there is "no evidence" of this aircraft having a systemic flaw. Meanwhile: Boeing brought $70B into Washington State's economy in one year. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeingrsquos-economic-... Boeing is a major defense contractor, providing transportation, weapons, and other supplies to the US Military.
Boeing was a big employer, contractor, etc. back in 2013 when the FAA grounded the entire 787 fleet. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/16/169555027...
Obama's administration was run grossly different than Trump's administration. Case in point: FAA doesn't even have a Trump-appointed administrator yet (Daniel Elwell was only appointed to the position of Deputy administrator and is only "Acting Administrator" for now).
This goes beyond aircraft at the moment. The NTSB and America in general used to lead. Now it seems the world is going to get on without them.
KAYAK has reported that people in the USA are filtering out 737 MAX8/9 flights now in ever increasing numbers. (Orbitz and Expedia have followed KAYAK's lead and added filters to filter out this plane.) IMO, It's only a matter of time before public pressure forces either the government, or the carriers themselves to ground the planes.
Is that actually an option for Kayak?
The usual sites I use to search for flights do not allow filtering on airplane type (except maybe "exclude prop planes").