171–180 of 302 posts
Or maybe the pilot made a mistake and is trying to save face by blaming the instruments. I suggest waiting for the investigation to figure out what went wrong. For example, he could have slipped while climbing out of the seat and fell against the control column.
They're down ~27% YTD. Something tells me that there's going to be a "come to Jesus" meeting soon in the C-suite's future that results in the deployment of a golden parachute.
There will be a scapegoat, and then big bonuses for everyone else for eliminating the bad seed, at the expense of the workers who won't get raises to pay for it all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with zero controls, and even if one or more of the various computers decided spontaneously to restart, I would expect the plane to continue flying the way it did before the incident rather than going into an (apparently) uncommanded descent? I mean, we had that with the 737 MAX, so I wouldn't rule it out, but it sounds suspiciously like the pilot messed up and is trying to blame the airplane. However I'm no spec…
But what control input could a pilot make that abruptly produces significant negative gees for just a couple of seconds? Other than the bland references to "technical issue" it sounds like clear air turbulence. (Although one possible mistake could be that the weather radar did warn of it and the pilot didn't react?)
That is if the autopilot is producing a constant nose up control signal the auto-trim will move the elevator tabs towards nose up until the AP pitch signal is null.
It's to prevent fun excursions like this should the autopilot become disconnected without the pilots hands on the controls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All development was offshored to a lowest bidder. Thanks to this, all our critical flight control software is now developed by a single intern aided by Copilot (sic!) We are now looking for a way to optimize the intern away.
I can’t wait until they replace pilots with remote workers in a low cost of living area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's worth reporting on because this particular issue is known to everyone... you need to cycle the power on the planes every 3 days or else the reset themselves. it's crazy that a modern plane needs to have that happen but it does. the most likely situation is that the plane didn't get shutdown and happened to occur at a level flying situation and the pilots probably freaked out and overflew the plane which…
Unless you're a pilot I'm not sure why anyone would expect that to be common knowledge. And it's insane such a system would ever be authorized IMO. That sounds like a hack to fix a memory leak or similarly some bug they can't figure out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funniest thing is that Boeing is barely industry, with all the two-way regulatory ties and of course the monopoly, it's like a nationalized company that just happens to be nominally owned by investors. The only ideology that Boeing makes look bad is the Soviet system! :-)
Seems sort of like the opposite—a lot of the regulation is done by people installed by lobbying, sort of like a privately owned and operated part of government. Of course it's terrible for everyone but shareholders there isn't really any domestic competition.
The shareholders in a company have no reason to want the government to kill off the competition - they could just as easily invest in that competition. Shareholders care about the size of the whole market and corruption steals from them as much as it steals from anybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is worthy of reporting. 50+ people were injured, one is in severe condition.
Flight control incidents that cause injuries are not hard to find on avherald. I guess I'm not saying it isn't worth reporting. Before the Boeing Narrative set in, these kinds of stories did get reported! But now they're tied into this long-running Boeing arc, and it's frustrating because there isn't enough in the story to know what's really going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you link a few with injuries anywhere near this size? I feel like that’d be national news, so it’s surprising to hear it’s happening often.
https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5 https://avherald.com/h?article=515c54c7 https://avherald.com/h?article=5153c289 https://avherald.com/h?article=514dd2cc https://avherald.com/h?article=51474192 https://avherald.com/h?article=50a9fa9f https://avherald.com/h?article=512e34e3 Only three are "anywhere near", but you get the idea, that's just browsing the first page with the accident filter on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think maybe you've misunderstood what the common knowledge said. Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude, so yea turbulence alone hasn't caused a crash. But anything near terrain is plenty risky (mountain waves, low-level wind shear). If the turbulence makes you drop a couple of hundred feet that's no big deal at 35,000 feet and no matter how bumpy it gets, the wings aren't going to break off. But if…
> Turbulence hasn't ripped an airplane apart at altitude It has, not only in this case but also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_CityHopper_Flight_431 And there are many other examples. I guess it depends by what you mean by "at altitude"? Most of these accidents did happen below 10.000 feet yes. And the mountain wave phenomenon in New Zealand in particular reaches pretty high. Some glider pilots use it to get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is worthy of reporting. 50+ people were injured, one is in severe condition.
Flight control incidents that cause injuries are not hard to find on avherald. I guess I'm not saying it isn't worth reporting. Before the Boeing Narrative set in, these kinds of stories did get reported! But now they're tied into this long-running Boeing arc, and it's frustrating because there isn't enough in the story to know what's really going on.
No they're not. Flight control issues happen, turbulence happens, flight control issues that cause injuries are quite rare.