191–200 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's by country of occurrence. By country of operator is probably a better indicator. Until very recently, China had more international passengers than domestic. Your figure is also for a single year.
Yeah I know. The point here is that it is a figure. Instead of just angry words and nothing to back it up. You're welcome to calculate more precise numbers if you care about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Airbus A320 alone has had 35 hull loss incidents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incide... Whatever else you think about this topic, it’s utter nonsense to say only Boeings crash.
None of those crashes are due to new undocumented features pilots totally don't need to be retained for.
Forget China, think about yourself. If you have an option to fly on a 737 Max or another aircraft right now, which would you choose? I suspect market forces will ground these planes anyway.
Why? Because 2 737s went down in the past few years? Do you know how many successful flights have been completed in the past few years? Would you rather drive? do you know how many people die in car accidents everyday? Over 3000. But it doesn't make the news because by definition it isn't new, it happens every day.
Rest in peace to the 157 deceased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is a one party state which explicitly doesn't permit any organization, much less a government agency, to operate without political interference.
America is a two party state... so what? My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions. Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s…
US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America is a two party state... so what? My point is if your mind is closed to looking at their actions at an objective level, there is no point arguing against your position, since it is that China is inherently evil, and is incapable of good actions. Question is, what if you’re wrong? What if one party is better than two, or four, or 8? And if you can’t consider that possibility, are you any more open than China’s…
> America is a two party state. US are a multi-party state with two dominant parties. There are many unrepresented legal political parties.
The US federal government is a two-party system with some non-party representation; not only is a multi-party system is defined by having multiple represented parties, but the US has a number of government systems set up whose structure is fundamentally predicated on their only being two parties that matter, and both the major parties observe that structure even when they have the political opportunity to gain immediate advantage by exploiting the huge loopholes that this opens in theory; e.g., a party could pack the so-called “independent” government commissions whose members are Presidentially appointed with a limit of a bare majority (3 on 5-member commissions) from a single party by appointing friendly independents or members of ideologically-aligned minor parties, but even when the President’s party controls the Senate and so shutting the opposing party out completely would not provoke confirmation battles that might be lost, the form of duopoly is strictly adhered to.
It's clear that functionally, everything outside or the major parties is decorative and non-functional; even the independents in office functionally are tied to one or the other of the major parties (whichever they caucus with).
People seem to think this is a political move by the China, which may be true, but this is actually what they're supposed to do. According to the article, 96 737 MAX jets are operated by Chinese airlines, and the aircraft appears to be racking up a questionable safety record. I wouldn't put faith in the FAA to be beyond political influence and crack down on an American manufacturer quickly. Lauda Air flight 004 [0] c…
Well we might be jumping to conclusions here a quote on the issue from pilots forum: "Runaway stabilizer procedures in the 737 have remained pretty much unchanged since its first flight. The same can be said for pretty much any Boeing airliner. 1 - Turn off the autopilot to see if it's causing the problem. 2 - Oppose the trim manually with the yoke. If that stops it, you're done. 3 - If that doesn't work, then you tu…
> 3 - If that doesn't work, then you turn off the stab trim cutout switches.
And.. If this doesn't work either? What if it seems to make things worse? Is that switch implemented in hardware or software? I don't mean the switch itself: does it just pull a pin high/low for some controller or does it fully disconnect/shut down the offending part?
Especially for the case of "it actually makes things worse" finding that the switch was ultimately left in the "on" position doesn't really help; quite the opposite I'd say (but I'd assume any change to the switch would be logged by the black box to be able to identify this case).
Actually when I saw the altitude log of the first crash I wondered why there was such a steep descend the first time, while the following cycles were much less extreme. So that's my buildup for tomorrow's conspiracy theory, someone else do the flesh out. ;-)
Maybe it's politically motivated, but IMO so is the FAA's certification and nonaction so far. Boeing promised a software fix by January, and the FAA's decision not to ground the fleet was probably informally based on that promise. Unfortunately the software fix is proving more difficult than anticipated. Regulated, safety-critical software, whose failure leads to a smoking crater full of bodies can be like that. Espe…
FAA can write regulations that are favorable to the U.S. interests as long as it is seen to have integrity so the major course correction needed to save it's credibility as a long term advantage to the national aviation industry? Not credibility in terms of actually avoiding craters full of bodies better than anyone else on the planet to date(737MAX is still 737?), but only as a petty strategic trade war tool? This i…
Maybe it's politically motivated, but IMO so is the FAA's certification and nonaction so far. Boeing promised a software fix by January, and the FAA's decision not to ground the fleet was probably informally based on that promise. Unfortunately the software fix is proving more difficult than anticipated. Regulated, safety-critical software, whose failure leads to a smoking crater full of bodies can be like that. Espe…
I wonder if there's a cognitive bias punishing action vs. inaction here, too, in the decision to delay the software fix -- when they decide to delay the fix again to consider improving it further, are they accurately calculating the consequences of the inaction of having no deployed fix?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, it's "shocking". I guess that's why the pilots reacted the way they did - they didn't expect the stall & it was probably shocking for them, especially if they weren't properly trained for it or thinking that a stall is impossible or takes "much more effort than this". There's also been quite a few of these type of stalls documented in the past (eg. where the pitot tubes failed).
This discussion is divorced from reality. These two fatal crashes were not caused by stalls. The first was for sure caused by MCAS incorrectly pitching the nose down and the second appears likely to share the same cause.
Also, pilots should be prepared to experience faulty sensors as they could fail at any time, no matter what model aircraft they are flying, no?