some weeks ago, I was caught by my partner cheating , He took records of the whole incident and threatened to expose it on the internet. I was so scared and didn't want to be exposed so I researched for an hacker and i was referred to Remote Spy hacker as the best, I'm so happy he saved me the embarrasement my ex was planning to put me through by deleting all the pictures and videos he took on his phone. If your in need of a professional hacker contact [ Remote spy hacker @ gm ail . c om ].
Is my plane a 737 MAX?
571–579 of 579 posts
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. Knowing that there is some systemic failure within Boeing must change your priors, no? What's wrong with pointing that out and being concerned?
> But, we're seeing fatal issues with one specific company over and over again. We aren't . There were fatal issues with one system (MCAS) on one line of planes. This was addressed, and since then there have been zero fatalities (or injuries) caused by design and/or engineering issues by this manufacturer. Their safety record is not substantially different from that of Airbus (who have their own design issues, IMO, s…
Sorry to pester, but here you go
https://www.ft.com/content/1588974e-db75-4a02-9aff-deb0b75ed...
Where is this for airbus?
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per mile traveled but not per trip.
I'm not sure how that applies here - the trip home from a travel destination will be a similar distance whether driven or flown.
Because the idea that airplane travel is safer than passenger vehicle travel is propaganda/marketing. Flying is safe, but in practical terms the sentence "flying is safer than driving" is not only nonsensical but also false.
If you could magically replace every passenger vehicle trip with a commercial airline flight, including the quick trips down the street to the grocery store, there would be more fatalities. Because, statistically, flying is less safe per trip.
The reason why flying is safer for long trips is because the "danger window" of a flight is generally takeoff and landing, while the "danger window" for driving is basically the whole drive.
You can slice this another way. In the book Freakonomics, they discuss that "per hour spent traveling" the passenger vehicle and the airplane are approximately the same risk level.
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your automobile trip to the grocery store is far riskier. I feel it's important to provide complete information. Flying is safer per mile traveled than driving. Driving is safer on a per-trip basis. So if you compare your trip to the grocery store to your flight to visit extended family, the trip to your grocery store is safer. But if you compare 10,000 miles of driving back and forth to the grocery store over many…
> Driving is safer on a per-trip basis. You can’t make this blanket statement and I would bet on average it’s the opposite still. - Flying in the US is on average ~750x safer per mile than driving according to 2000-2010 data (it’s likely even larger a difference in the modern era). - I would venture to guess that most US flights are in the 1000-2000 mile range and most US car trips are easily more than the equivalent…
Depending on how you slice this problem, you will get a different result.
If you slice it up per mile traveled, airplanes win.
If you slice it up per trip taken, driving wins.
If you slice it up per hour spent traveling, driving and flying are about the same. (according to the book Freakonomics)
Flying is very safe. The statement "flying is safer than driving" is industry propaganda to help appease fears of flying. They cherry-picked the statistic that made them look best and flooded the whole world with it.
If you had a magic genie and you made your one wish to replace all passenger vehicle trips with commercial airline flights, including quick trips to the grocery store, you would kill a lot of extra people.
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the critical thing to think about is the derivative of risk. How is risk changing over time. We are in a trend where risk is increasing. Boeing is a major institution responsible for building critical defense and civil technology. With many jobs on the line as well. People need to be held accountable, and we need a culture that allows people to speak up earlier and more often. Otherwise this will continue to…
> We are in a trend where risk is increasing Is there any data supporting this? From what I can tell, the trend from both IATA [0] and ASN [1][2] data appears to be down. Any small YoY increase [3] in 2020 being attributable to PS752 shot down by Iran and an Embraer EMB-120RT shot down over Somalia. This downward trend seems to go for fatal and non-fatal accidents. I completely agree with the need for oversight in th…
You are right. I also checked out NTSB incidents per year, also down or flat over last decade.
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other people don't just care about themselves, they care that 400 people might randomly die in the future for no valid reason. It's a sophisticated form of empathy, not everyone growing up learns it.
Not sure what your comment really adds except a thinly veiled attack on my ability to empathize. Of course reasonable people desire increased safety all around. My point is that even with this disaster (in which nobody was harmed), aviation safety is the best it's ever been and is continuing to improve. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about ways to improve or hold Boeing accountable. But it's not a ra…
It's not a rational reaction to stop flying on 737 Max, despite the daily news headlines in the New York Times over the last 3 days.
Or, it is a perfectly rational reaction for many people, it's just your theory of rationalism—based on coarse-grained probability of an event ("airlines are safer than ever"), rather than Expected Value or something else—is limited and unrealistic. Like, maybe there's some fancy Nash Equilibrium psycho economic rationality in which the empirically observed behavior is actually rational.
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#577Earlier quoted context omitted.
The industry is littered with defunct companies that couldn't financially afford to spend ten+ years bringing a new design to market. It took nearly 14 years to bring the 787 to market, what company can afford a timeline like that? This is more the norm than the exception. Innovation is massively stifled in aviation. > That is more of an argument for stricter requirements around automobiles and that entire industry t…
" Innovation is massively stifled in aviation." Flying is also a pretty mature technology by now. We've done it for more than 100 years and the physics is well understood. Massive leaps in capabilities are unlikely, much like no one will develop a pistol with a 2 mile range or a coffee machine that produces an espresso in a blink of an eye. What you can do is add more sensors and software, but the increasing complexi…
100 years is not a long time. Compare a railroad now to a railroad we had 100 years after the invention of railroads.
There are massive improvements still possible in the engine. Like the currently in design RISE engine. And other engines as well. And if you combined the technology you can get even further. We are not close to the end on any of this. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkHKet7rp4o
There are various aero-dynamic concepts that have not yet been fully or even partially explored. Trust brace wings, blended wings or my personal favorite, Prantdl Wing. A Prantdl wing might allow you to remove the whole tail, another huge potential boost. You can even combine all these concepts potentially.
I would guess we can get 40% more efficiency just based on those things.
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#578I find it puzzling that airlines are still ordering this plane. It's not just us, the customers, who should "vote with their feet", but the airlines, too. I would not buy from a vendor that is not able to have a QA process that makes sure all screws and bolts are in place, fastened and secured. Even if it would not be an airplane where this is critical for safety, even if it would just be a toaster, I would stop buyi…
It’s like people buying Teslas. Sure, it’s a company run by a mercurial edgelord billionaire who doesn’t believe in quality assurance or decent post-sale service, but hey, it’s a well-priced (depending on your jurisdiction maybe) car built by a company focused on electric cars and chargers. Not like you have a ton of options.
In Australia, both your points are invalid. There are stringent quality control rules (the new Model 3 has just been held back until Tesla make engineering changes to meet Australian compliance), and there are plenty of other pure EV company options - BYD, Polestar, etc - as well as decent alternatives like Kia and MG.
It's governments job to proactively ensure safety standards are met, that the consumer has recourse if they are not, and to allow healthy competition in the market. If your market doesn't have this, don't blame Tesla.
Re: Is my plane a 737 MAX?
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doubt people are that afraid of 737 Max that they'll cancel a flight (and forfeit their ticket) over it Nobody rational will. But there are plenty of people with an understandable fear of flying who will create a customer-service kerfuffle over it. On the margin that might not do anything. But in aggregate it could affect how the airlines negotiate settlements from Boeing.
Everybody agrees that FAA is not what it used to be, these days the Boeing engineers are basically self-certifying their planes. So what's irrational in not believing that 737 Max is safe?
Thankfully, the US is not the world and there are other authorities beyond the FAA.